Annulment Law Firm Philippines

We specialize in Family Law, Annulment, Divorce and Litigation

jucolawfirm.com OPEN

Home Law Firm Law Library Laws Jurisprudence

October 2017 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions

Philippine Supreme Court

Custom Search Jurisprudence
Search

Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2017 > October 2017 Decisions > G.R.
No. 205912, October 18, 2017 - ROGELIA R. GATAN AND THE HEIRS OF BERNARDINO
ChanRobles On-Line Bar
GATAN, NAMELY: RIZALINO GATAN AND FERDINAND GATAN,, Petitioners, v. JESUSA
Review
VINARAO, AND SPOUSES MILDRED CABAUATAN AND NOMAR CABAUATAN,
Respondents.:

G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017 - ROGELIA R. GATAN AND THE HEIRS OF
BERNARDINO GATAN, NAMELY: RIZALINO GATAN AND FERDINAND GATAN,, Petitioners,
v. JESUSA VINARAO, AND SPOUSES MILDRED CABAUATAN AND NOMAR CABAUATAN,
Respondents.

FIRST DIVISION

G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017

ROGELIA R. GATAN AND THE HEIRS OF BERNARDINO GATAN, NAMELY:

RIZALINO GATAN AND FERDINAND GATAN,, Petitioners, v. JESUSA VINARAO,
AND SPOUSES MILDRED CABAUATAN AND NOMAR CABAUATAN, Respondents.

DECISION

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Petitioners Rogelia Gatan (Rogelia) and her sons, Rizalino Gatan (Rizalino) and Ferdinand
Gatan (Ferdinand) - the latter two as heirs of Bernardino Gatan (Bernardino), Rogelia's
late husband - filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari, under Rule 45 of the

Rules of Court, assailing (a) the Decision1 dated September 7, 2012 of the Court of

Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94340, which affirmed the Decision2 dated October 1, 2009
of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cabagan, Isabela, Branch 22, dismissing petitioners'

Complaint in Civil Case No. 22-1061; and (b) the Resolution3 dated February 11, 2013 of
the appellate court in the same case denying petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration.

Petitioners filed before the RTC on January 3, 2007 a Complaint4 for Nullity of Document
and Recovery of Possession with Damages against respondents Jesusa Vinarao (Jesusa)
and spouses Nomar and Mildred Cabauatan (spouses Cabauatan), which was docketed
as Civil Case No. 22-1061.

Petitioners alleged in their Complaint that Bernardino and his wife, petitioner Rogelia
(spouses Gatan), acquired a parcel of land in Casibarag Sur, Cabagan, Isabela, with an
area of around 406 square meters (spouses Gatan's property). The said property was
surveyed in Bernardino's name under LMB Form No. 23-37-R of the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources dated October 26, 1964.5 Bernardino passed away
on March 19, 2000 and was survived by petitioner Rogelia and their seven children,
including petitioners Rizalino and Ferdinand.

According to petitioners, sometime in January 2002, respondent spouses Cabauatan

asked petitioner Rogelia if they could temporarily erect a house on the spouses Gatan's
property. Petitioner Rogelia agreed since respondent Mildred Cabauatan (Mildred) was

Bernardino's relative.6

Petitioners recounted that more than four years later, or sometime in March 2006,

petitioner Rogelia learned of a Deed of Absolute Sale7 supposedly executed by Bernadino

on December 30, 1989 conveying a portion of the spouses Gatan's property, measuring
around 245 square meters (subject property), in favor of respondent Mildred's parents,
namely, Sostones Vinarao (Sostones) and his wife, respondent Jesusa (spouses Vinarao),
for the consideration of P4,000.00. Petitioner Rogelia questioned the Deed of Absolute
Sale, averring that Bernardino could not have signed the said Deed because he was
illiterate; and that the Deed of Absolute Sale lacked her marital consent since it was
signed not by her, but by a certain Aurelia Ramos Gatan. Petitioner Rogelia then
confronted the spouses Vinarao regarding the falsified Deed of Absolute Sale and
demanded that the respondent spouses Cabauatan vacate the subject property.

The parties appeared before the barangay to try to settle their dispute amicably, but to

no avail. A Certificate to File Action8 dated April 10, 2006 was issued by the appropriate
barangay officials to the parties.

Thereafter, petitioners instituted Civil Case No. 22-1061 against respondents9 before the
RTC.

In their Answer10 to the Complaint, respondents countered that the subject property

was previously owned by Pedro Gatan,11 the father of Bernardino and Carmen Gatan
(Carmen). Carmen, the mother and grandmother of Sostones and respondent Mildred,
respectively, had always been in actual possession of the subject property.

While respondents admitted that the spouses Gatan eventually came to own the subject
property, respondents asserted that the spouses Gatan sold the subject property to the
spouses Vinarao by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989, which
was notarized by Atty. Alfredo C. Mabbayad (Mabbayad). Soon after, on June 15, 1990,
the spouses Vinarao declared the subject property in Sostones' name for real property

tax purposes under Tax Declaration (TD) No. 99-06-008-0343-R.12 Respondents had
been paying the real property taxes for the subject property as evidenced by Tax Receipt

No. 528588013 dated January 11, 1990, Tax Receipt No. 2871484V14 dated January 26,

2005, and Tax Receipt No. 5667116V15 dated March 15, 2006.

SPONSORED SEARCHES
find court cases by name
criminal law cases
case law supreme court decisions
public court records
civil court cases
SPONSORED SEARCHES
find court cases by name
criminal law cases
case law supreme court decisions
public court records
supreme court judgement copy
SPONSORED SEARCHES
find court cases by name
criminal law cases
case law supreme court decisions
public court records
supreme court judgement copy
October-2017 Jurisprudence
Respondents denied that they falsified Bernardino's signature on the Deed of Absolute
Sale and insisted that Bernardino could write his own name. Respondents also claimed
that petitioner Rogelia signed the Deed of Absolute Sale in her real name, which is
Aurelia Ramos Gatan.
Respondents further narrated that petitioner Rogelia previously filed a complaint for
falsification of public document and use of falsified document against respondents Jesusa
and Mildred before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Ilagan, Isabela, docketed as
I.S. No. 2006E-637, but said complaint was dismissed in a Resolution16 dated
September 26, 2006 due to lack of probable cause. Likewise, when the parties appeared
before the barangay, petitioners supposedly demanded that respondents pay an
additional P50,000.00 for the subject property, but respondents refused because they
had already fully paid the consideration for the said property.17
Consequently, respondents prayed for the dismissal of petitioners' Complaint in Civil
Case No. 22-1061.
After trial on the merits, the RTC rendered a Decision on October 1, 2009, dismissing
petitioners' Complaint in Civil Case No. 22-1061. The dispositive portion of the RTC
judgment reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of the
[respondents] and against the [petitioners], upholding the validity of the
Deed of Absolute Sale, dated December 30, 1989 and accordingly dismissing
the complaint. The counterclaim is likewise ordered dismissed for lack of
evidence to substantiate the same.18
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal, which was given due course by the RTC in its Order
19 dated October 26, 2009.
Petitioners' appeal before the Court of Appeals was docketed as CA​ G.R. CV No. 94340.
In its Decision dated September 7, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC
Decision. The appellate court denied petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration in its
Resolution dated February 11, 2013.
Hence, petitioners filed the instant Petition, raising the sole issue of:
WHETHER THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN AFFIRMING THE
TRIAL COURT'S DECISION UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE SUBJECT DEED
OF SALE.20
The core of petitioners' argument is that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30,
1989 is void and inexistent absent the spouses Gatan's consent, considering that
Bernardino's signature on said Deed was forged and the same Deed lacked petitioner
Rogelia's marital consent. Petitioners maintain that Bernardino, who was unschooled,
could not have affixed his signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale without the assistance
of petitioner Rogelia, who signed for and in behalf of Bernardino whenever the latter's
signature was needed. Moreover, petitioner Rogelia disavows giving her marital consent
to the sale by affixing her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale as Aurelia Ramos
Gatan. Petitioners also asseverate that Bernardino was never married to one Aurelia
Ramos Gatan.
The Petition at bar is without merit.
A cursory reading of the present Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court reveals that it is a reiteration of factual issues and arguments raised by
petitioners in their appeal, which had already been fully passed upon by the Court of
Appeals. Whether or not the signatures of Bernardino and petitioner Rogelia appearing
on the Deed of Absolute Sale are forgeries is a question of fact which is beyond this
Court's jurisdiction under the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. Questions of fact,
which would require a re-evaluation of the evidence, are inappropriate under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Court under Rule 45, Section 121 is limited
 only to errors of law as the Court is not a trier of facts. While Rule 45, Section 1 is not
G.R. No. 199885, October 02, absolute, none of the recognized exceptions,22 which allow the Court to review factual
2017 - JESUSA DUJALI BUOT,
issues, exists in the instant case. The following discussion in Miro v. Vda. de Erederos23
Petitioner, v. ROQUE RASAY
is particularly instructive on this matter:
DUJALI, Respondent.
Parameters of a judicial review under a Rule 45 petition

G.R. No. 181435, October 02,

a. Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law
2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. Before proceeding to the merits of the case, this Court deems it necessary to
ROSARIO L. NICOLAS, emphasize that a petition for review under Rule 45 is limited only to
Respondent. questions of law. Factual questions are not the proper subject of an appeal by
certiorari. This Court will not review facts, as it is not our function to analyze
G.R. No. 200026, October 04, or weigh all over again evidence already considered in the proceedings below.
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE As held in Diokno v. Hon. Cacdac, a re-examination of factual findings is
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. outside the province of a petition for review on certiorari, to wit:
ARMANDO DELECTOR, Accused-
It is aphoristic that a re-examination of factual findings cannot be
Appellant.
done through a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court because as earlier stated, this Court is not a
G.R. No. 196419, October 04,
trier of facts[.] x x x. The Supreme Court is not duty-bound to
2017 - PILIPINAS MAKRO, INC.,
analyze and weigh again the evidence considered in the
Petitioner, v. COCO CHARCOAL
proceedings below. This is already outside the province of the
PHILIPPINES, INC. AND LIM KIM
instant Petition for Certiorari.
SAN, Respondents.

There is a question of law when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
G.R. No. 222816, October 04, law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact, on the other hand, exists
2017 - ALLAN JOHN UY REYES, when the doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsehood of the alleged
Petitioner, v. GLOBAL BEER BELOW facts. Unless the case falls under any of the recognized exceptions, we are
ZERO, INC., Respondent. limited solely to the review of legal questions.

b. Rule 45 petition is limited to errors of the appellate court

G.R. No. 206826, October 02,
2017 - CAREER PHILIPPINES Furthermore, the "errors" which we may review in a petition for review on
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. AND certiorari are those of the CA, and not directly those of the trial court or the
COLUMBIAN SHIPMANAGEMENT, quasi-judicial agency, tribunal, or officer which rendered the decision in the
LTD., Petitioners, v. EDUARDO* J. first instance. It is imperative that we refrain from conducting further scrutiny
GODINEZ, Respondent.; G.R. No. of the findings of fact made by trial courts, lest we convert this Court into a
206828 - EDUARDO J. GODINEZ, trier of facts. As held in Reman Recio v. Heirs of the Spouses Aguedo and
Petitioner, v. CAREER PHILIPPINES Maria Altamirano, etc., et al., our review is limited only to the errors of law
SHIPMANAGEMENT, INC. AND committed by the appellate court, to wit:
COLUMBIAN SHIPMANAGEMENT,
LTD., Respondents. Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, jurisdiction is generally
limited to the review of errors of law committed by the appellate

G.R. No. 171836, October 02, court. The Supreme Court is not obliged to review all over again

2017 - DEPARTMENT OF the evidence which the parties adduced in the court a quo. Of

AGRARIAN REFORM, course, the general rule admits of exceptions, such as where the

REPRESENTED BY HON. NASSER C. factual findings of the CA and the trial court are conflicting or

PANGANDAMAN, IN HIS CAPACITY contradictory. (Citations omitted.)

AS DAR-OIC SECRETARY,
At any rate, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989 is notarized, and it is a
Petitioner, v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE,
well-settled principle that a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption
Respondent.; G.R. No. 195213 -
of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith and credence attached to a
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
public instrument. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear,
Petitioner, v. SUSIE IRENE GALLE,
convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that
SUBSTITUTED BY HER HEIRS,
gave rise to a spurious contract.24
NAMELY HANS PETER, CARL OTTO,
FRITZ WALTER, AND GEORGE On proving forgery, the Court expounded in Gepulle-Garbo v. Garabato25 that:
ALAN, ALL SURNAMED RIETH,
Respondents. As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive
and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging

A.C. No. 11483, October 03, forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a
2017 - LUZVIMINDA S. CERILLA,
Complainant, v. ATTY. SAMUEL SM.
LEZAMA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 192708, October 02,
2017 - MANILA PUBLIC SCHOOL
TEACHERS' ASSOCIATION
(MPSTA), TEACHERS'
COALITION (TDC), MELCHOR V.
CAYABYAB, EVA V. FERIA, ELCIRA
A. PONFERRADA, AND NATIVIDAD
P. TALASTAS, IN THEIR BEHALF
AND IN BEHALF OF ALL GSIS
MEMBERS AND
SIMILARLY SITUATED, Petitioners,
v. MR. WINSTON F. GARCIA, IN
preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more
convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. The fact of forgery
can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged
signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose
signature is theorized to have been forged. (Citations omitted.)
On one hand, herein petitioners presented petitioner Rogelia's testimony26 that
Bernardino was unschooled; Bernardino had always asked petitioner Rogelia to sign his
DIGNITY
name for him; Bernardino did not authorize petitioner Rogelia to sign the Deed of
Absolute Sale; petitioner Rogelia was not the one who affixed the signature appearing
above Bernardino's name in the Deed of Absolute Sale; petitioner Rogelia did not know
Aurelia Ramos Gatan whose name and signature appeared in the space for marital
consent in the Deed of Absolute Sale; and petitioner Rogelia did not sign in the name of
Aurelia Ramos Gatan on the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioners also submitted specimens
RETIREES
of petitioner Rogelia's signature and Bernardino's name in petitioner Rogelia's
handwriting.27

HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND

On the other hand, respondents called to the witness stand Carlos Vinarao (Carlos),28
GENERAL MANAGER OF THE
who personally saw Bernardino and petitioner Rogelia sign the Deed of Absolute Sale
GOVERNMENT SERVICE
INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS), GSIS before Atty. Mabbayad, the notary public; Nenita Gatan (Nenita),29 Bernardino's sister,

BOARD OF TRUSTEES, AND SEC. who stated that she knew her brother's wife by both names "Rogelia" and "Aurelia;" and

ARMIN LUISTRO, IN HIS CAPACITY respondent Jesusa,30 who essentially affirmed in open court the respondents' allegations
AS SECRETARY OF THE in their Answer to the Complaint in Civil Case No. 22-1061. Respondents offered as
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, documentary evidence the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989, Tax
Respondents. Declarations covering the subject property in Sostones' name, and Tax Receipts for real
property taxes on the subject property in the names of respondents Jesusa or Mildred.
G.R. No. 223505, October 03,
Weighing the evidence submitted by both sides, the RTC ruled in favor of the validity of
2017 - PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION
the Deed of Absolute of Sale. The RTC ratiocinated that:
OF DETECTIVE AND PROTECTIVE
AGENCY OPERATORS (PADPAO), This court has carefully, studiously and judiciously looked into and assessed
REGION 7 CHAPTER, INC., the grounds relied (sic) which by [petitioners] towards sustaining their
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON allegation of invalidity of the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated December 30,
ELECTIONS (COMELEC) AND/OR 1989, and it cannot find any valid reason to agree with the stand of the
ITS COMMITTEE ON THE BAN ON [petitioners]. For one, Rogelia Gatan's testimony is uncorroborated and is
FIREARMS AND SECURITY self-serving such that it cannot inspire credence in the light of and viewed
PERSONNEL (CBFSP), against the testimony of Carlos Vinarao, who is clearly an instrumental
Respondents. witness to the execution of the contested document. The bare denial of
Rogelia Gatan that her husband Bernardino Gatan signed the Deed of
G.R. No. 218575, October 04, Absolute Sale and her [further] claim that the latter is illiterate and did not
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE sign it as he does not know how to sign his name, to the court's view is a
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. negative evidence which is overwhelmed by the positive assertion of the
FRANCIS URSUA Y BERNAL, instrumental witness who himself affixed his signature thereto, that
Accused-Appellant. Bernardino Gatan together with his wife Rogelia Gatan both signed the
contested Deed of Absolute Sale before the instrumental witness and prior to
G.R. No. 230628, October 03, its signing by the notary public, Atty. Alfredo Mabbayad. It is trite to state in
2017 - SMALL BUSINESS this regard, that jurisprudence recognizes that the authenticity and due
CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. execution of a document may be proven by testimonial evidence and on this
COMMISSION ON AUDIT, point, the testimony of Carlos Vinarao is credible and worthy of positive
Respondent. appreciation. The Supreme Court has said:

"We likewise sustain the trial Court and the Court of Appeals
A.M. No. P-17-3756 (Formerly
concerning the testimonies of Verma Domingo, Leonora and Jose
OCA I.P.I. No.16-4634-P), October
to the effect that they saw Bruno affixing his signature to the
10, 2017 - JUDGE LITA S.
questioned deed. They were unrebutted. Genuineness of a
TOLENTINO-GENILO, Complainant,
handwriting may be proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by
v. ROLANDO S. PINEDA,
anyone who actually saw the person write or affix his signature on
Respondent.
the document"

G.R. No. 188163, October 03, Appropriately, Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court states:
2017 - LT. SG. MARY NANCY P. "Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The
GADIAN, Petitioner, v. ARMED handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
FORCES OF THE PHILIPPINES believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
CHIEF OF STAFF LT. GEN. VICTOR seen the person write x x x and had thus acquired knowledge of
IBRADO; PHILIPPINE NAVY FLAG the handwriting of such person."
OFFICER IN COMMAND VICE-
Going by the force of jurisprudence and consonant with the aforecited Rule
ADMIRAL FERDINAND GOLEZ;
132, Section 22, of the Rules of Court, the court considers the testimonies of
COL. JOEL IBAÑEZ-CHIEF OF
Carlos Vinarao, who is an instrumental witness and saw the execution of the
STAFF OF THE WESTERN
contested document, the Deed of Absolute Sale, dated December 30, 1989,
MINDANAO COMMAND; LT. COL.
to be preponderant vis a vis the testimony of the [petitioner] Rogelia Gatan,
ANTONIO DACANAY, MANAGEMENT
to prove the genuineness and due execution [of] the Deed of Sale herein
AND FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE
contested by the [petitioners].
WESTERN MINDANAO COMMAND;
RETIRED LT. GEN. EUGENIO CEDO, But more importantly, and this heavily bears against the [petitioners] and in
FORMER COMMANDER OF THE favor of [respondents], is the proven fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale,
WESTERN MINDANAO COMMAND, dated December 30, 1989, is a duly notarized document. As such, notarized
Respondents.; G.R. No. 188195 - document, the contested Deed of Absolute Sale enjoys the presumption of its
GEN. VICTORS. IBRADO, AFP; genuineness and due execution, which the [petitioners] have failed to rebut.
VICE ADMIRAL FERDINAND S. In a plethora of cases, the Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the validity
GOLEZ, PN; COL. JOEL IBAÑEZ, of notarized documents on the ground of the unrebutted presumption of their
PA; AND LTC ANTONIO DACANAY, genuineness and due execution. x x x
PA, Petitioners, v. NEDINA
xxxx
GADIAN-DIAMANTE, Respondent.

In conclusion, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989 executed
A.M. No. RTJ-17-2507 (formerly by Bernardino Gatan in favor of Sostones Vinarao is valid and binding on the
OCA IPI No. 14-4329-RTJ),
[petitioners] who failed to show convincing and clear proof of its invalidity.31
October 09, 2017 - RE:
ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS The Court of Appeals subsequently sustained the findings and appreciation of evidence
AGAINST HON. DINAH by the RTC, thus:
EVANGELINE B. BANDONG,
The pivotal issue in this case revolves on the validity of the Deed of Absolute
FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE,
Sale.
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH
59, LUCENA CITY, QUEZON It is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of the trial court are entitled
PROVINCE. to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and
valid reasons, because the trial court is in a better position to examine the
G.R. No. 196074, October 04, demeanor of the witnesses while testifying (Tayco vs. Heirs of Concepcion
2017 - FLORENCIA ARJONILLO, Tayco-Flores, 637 SCRA 742, 750 [2010]). We see no such reason to deviate
Petitioner, v. DEMETRIA from the findings of the RTC in this case.
PAGULAYAN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY
It bears to stress that the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale is one that was
HER HEIRS NAMELY: HERMANA
acknowledged before a Notary Public. It is well-settled that a document
VDA. DE CAMBRI, PORFIRIO T.
acknowledged before a Notary Public is a public document that enjoys the
PAGULAYAN, AND VICENTE,
presumption of regularity. It is a prima facie evidence of the truth of the facts
MAGNO, PEDRO, FLORENCIO,
stated therein and a conclusive presumption of its existence and due
MELECIO, LERMA, ALL SURNAMED
execution. (Ocampo vs. Land Bank of the Philippines, 591 SCRA 562, 571
MATALANG, AND AUREA
[2009]). Otherwise stated, public or notarial documents, or those
MATALANG-DELOS SANTOS,
instruments duly acknowledged or proved and certified as provided by law,
Respondent.
may be presented in evidence without further proof, the certificate of
acknowledgment being prima facie evidence of the execution of the
G.R. No. 208053, October 18,
instrument or document involved (Alfacero vs. Sevilla, 411 SCRA 387, 393
2017 - MEATWORLD
[2003]). In order to contradict the presumption of regularity of a public
INTERNATIONAL, INC., Petitioner,
document, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely
v. DOMINIQUE A. HECHANOVA,
preponderant (ibid.). In the case at bar, [petitioners] failed to present
Respondent.
evidence to overcome the presumptive authenticity and due execution of the
said Deed of Absolute Sale.
G.R. No. 229746, October 11,
2017 - ABBOTT LABORATORIES [Petitioner] Rogelia Gatan claimed that the signature of her husband in the
(PHILIPPINES), INC. AND questioned Deed of Absolute Sale is forged. She maintained that the
STEPHANE LANGEVIN, Petitioners, signature of the purported vendor appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale
v. MANUEL F. TORRALBA, ROSELLE
P. ALMAZAR, AND REDEL ULYSSES
M. NAVARRO, Respondents.
G.R. No. 201988, October 11,
2017 - MARIA VICTORIA SOCORRO
LONTOC-CRUZ, Petitioner, v. NILO
SANTOS CRUZ, Respondent.
G.R. No. 209342, October 04,
2017 - PEOPLE OF
PHILIPPINES,, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
CRISENTE PEPAÑO
Accused-Appellant.
A.C. No. 11754, October 03,
2017 - JOAQUIN G. BONIFACIO,
Complainant, v. ATTY. EDGARDO O.
ERA AND ATTY. DIANE KAREN B.
BRAGAS, Respondents.
G.R. No. 205912, October 18,
2017 - ROGELIA R. GATAN AND
THE HEIRS OF BERNARDINO
GATAN, NAMELY: RIZALINO GATAN
AND FERDINAND
Petitioners, v. JESUSA VINARAO,
AND SPOUSES
CABAUATAN AND
CABAUATAN, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2467 (Formerly
OCA IPI No. 14-4308-RTJ),
October 18, 2017 - ATTY. EDDIE U.
TAMONDONG,, Petitioner, v. JUDGE
EMMANUEL P. PASAL, PRESIDING
JUDGE, BRANCH 38, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, CAGAYAN DE ORO
CITY, Respondent.
A.M. No. P-12-3092 (Formerly
A.M. No. 12-7-54-MTC), October
10, 2017 - OFFICE OF THE COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,, Complainant, v.
REMEDIOS R. VIESCA, CLERK OF
COURT II, MUNICIPAL
COURT OF SAN ANTONIO, NUEVA
ECIJA, Respondent.
G.R. No. 205539, October 04,
2017 - VELIA J. CRUZ,, Petitioner,
v. SPOUSES MAXIMO AND SUSAN
CHRISTENSEN, Respondents.
G.R. No. 207938, October 11,
2017 - EVY CONSTRUCTION AND
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION,,
Petitioner, v. VALIANT
cannot possibly belong to Bernardino Gatan for the reason that the latter is
unschooled, unlettered and cannot write.
As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear,
positive and convincing evidence (Bautista vs. Court of Appeals, 436 SCRA
141, 146 [2004]). The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery
(ibid.). Hence, it was incumbent upon [petitioners] to prove the fact of
forgery and the inability of Bernardino Gatan to sign his name. [Petitioners],
in this case failed to present any other clear and convincing evidence to
substantiate their bare allegations. Then again, bare allegations,
unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof (Domingo vs.
THE
Robles, 453 SCRA 812, 818 [2005]).
NUÑEZ, Neither did (petitioner] Rogelia Gatan sufficiently prove that her signature
appearing on the Deed was likewise forged. She merely dwelt on her
argument that she was not Aurelia Gatan but nothing was presented to
substantiate her allegation that the signature therein was not hers. She did
not even present corroborating witnesses much less an independent expert
witness who could declare with authority and objectivity that the questioned
signatures are forged. As held by the Supreme Court:
"x x x he who disavows the authenticity of his signature on a
public document bears the responsibility to present evidence to
that effect. Mere disclaimer is not sufficient. At the very least, he
should present corroborating witnesses to prove his assertion. At
best, he should present an expert witness (Pan Pacific Industrial
Sals Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 482 SCRA 164, 176 [2006])
GATAN,,
At most, according to the RTC, the assertion made by [petitioners] that the
MILDRED signatures therein are not of Bernardino Gatan's nor hers is a bare denial that
NOMAR cannot prevail over the direct evidence of [respondents'] witness who
testified affirmatively that he was physically present at the signing of the
deed and who had personal knowledge thereof. Indeed, We affirm the
credence accorded by the RTC on the testimony of [respondents'] witness,
Carlos Vinarao who acted as the instrumental witness in the execution of the
questioned Deed of Absolute Sale. He testified that during the execution of
the said document, he was with the seller, Bernardino Gatan, his wife Aurelia
Gatan and the buyer, Sostones Vinarao and he personally witnessed all the
said parties affix their signatures before Notary Public Atty. Alfredo Mabbayad
(See: TSN dated November 10, 2008, pp. 10-11.) [Section] 22 of Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court provides:
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. — The
handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who
believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his
upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
TRIAL acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence
respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison,
made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or
treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
As records would show, Carlos Vinarao, the instrumental witness to the Deed
of Absolute Sale has testified in open court, confirming the authenticity and
due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. Having been physically present
to see the seller Bernardino Gatan, his wife Aurelia Gatan and the buyer
Sostones Vinarao affix their signatures on the document, the weight of
evidence preponderates in favor of [respondents].
ROLL Considering the validity of the subject Deed of Absolute Sale, all parties,
FORMING SALES CORPORATION, including their respective heirs, are directed to comply with the terms and
Respondent. conditions set forth therein.32

The aforequoted findings of fact of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
G.R. No. 203986, October 04,
binding and conclusive upon this Court.
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES,, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. The Court has always accorded great weight and respect to the findings of fact of trial
JERSON DASMARIÑAS Y courts, especially in their assessment of the credibility of witnesses. In this case, the RTC
GONZALES, Accused-Appellant. gave much credence to Carlos's testimony, and there is no cogent reason for the Court

to disturb the same. As the Court pronounced in People v. Regaspi33:

G.R. No. 214073, October 04,
2017 - BICOL MEDICAL CENTER,
REPRESENTED BY DR. EFREN SJ.
NERVA, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, REPRESENTED BY HEALTH
SECRETARY ENRIQUE
Petitioners, v. NOE
CELJUN F. YAP, ISMAEL A. ALBAO,
AUGUSTO S. QUILON, EDGAR F.
ESPLANA II, AND
ESPLANA, Respondents.
When it comes to credibility, the trial court's assessment deserves great
weight, and is even conclusive and binding, unless the same is tainted with
arbitrariness or oversight of some fact or circumstance of weight and
influence. Since it had the full opportunity to observe directly the deportment
T. ONA,, and the manner of testifying of the witnesses before it, the trial court is in a
B. BOTOR, better position than the appellate court to properly evaluate testimonial
evidence. The rule finds an even more stringent application where the CA
sustained said findings, as in this case. (Citations omitted.)
JOSEFINA F.
In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera,34 the Court further stressed that:

Indeed, it is settled that when the factual findings of the trial court are
G.R. No. 206292, October 11, confirmed by the Court of Appeals, said facts are final and conclusive on this
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE Court, unless the same are not supported by the evidence on record.
PHILIPPINES,, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ESTRILLO ESCOBAL Y SALVACION x x x findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court

AND MELVIN E. ABAÑO, Accused- of Appeals, are binding upon the Supreme Court. This rule may be

Appellants. disregarded only when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals
are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court, or

G.R. No. 189524, October 11, are not supported by the evidence on record. But there is no

2017 - ORIENTAL ASSURANCE ground to apply this exception to the instant case. This Court will

CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. not assess all over again the evidence adduced by the parties

MANUEL ONG, DOING BUSINESS particularly where as in this case the findings of both the trial

UNDER THE BUSINESS NAME OF court and the Court of Appeals completely coincide.

WESTERN PACIFIC TRANSPORT

As a last note, the Court states its observations as regards the signatures of Bernardino
SERVICES AND/OR ASIAN
(Exhibit "B-1") and Aurelia Ramos Gatan (Exhibit "B-2") on the Deed of Absolute Sale as
TERMINALS, INC., Respondents.
compared to the specimen signatures of Bernardino (Exhibit "B-4") and petitioner
Rogelia (Exhibit "B-3") submitted by petitioners, since the RTC and the Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 201378, October 18,
did not elaborate on the same. While there are marked differences between Bernardino's
2017 - G.V. FLORIDA TRANSPORT,
signature on the Deed and the specimen signature submitted by petitioners, these do
INC., Petitioner, v. TIARA
not necessarily prove that Bernardino's signature on the Deed is a forgery. The
COMMERCIAL CORPORATION,
differences are explainable by the fact that Bernardino's signature on the Deed was
Respondent.
affixed by Bernardino himself, as witnessed by Carlos; while the specimen signature
submitted by petitioners was Bernardino's name in petitioner Rogelia's handwriting. As
G.R. No. 190922, October 11,
for the signatures of Aurelia Ramos Gatan and petitioner Rogelia, visual comparison
2017 - FRANCISCA TAAR,
reveals that they actually look similar, especially the way the surname "Gatan" is written.
JOAQUINA TAAR, LUCIA TAAR AND
Two of respondents' witnesses, Nenita and respondent Jesusa, testified that they know
HEIRS OF OSCAR L. GALO,
petitioner Rogelia, Bernardino's wife, also by the name "Aurelia." Therefore, even taking
Petitioners, v. CLAUDIO LAWAN,
into consideration the submitted specimen signatures, petitioners still failed to present
MARCELINO L. GALO, ARTEMIO
clear, positive, convincing, and more than preponderant evidence to overcome the
ABARQUEZ, AUGUSTO B. LAWAN,
presumption of authenticity and due execution of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale
ADOLFO L. GALO AND EDUARDO
and to prove that the signatures of Bernardino and his wife appearing on said Deed are
R. ERMITA, Respondent.
forgeries.

G.R. No. 223556, October 09, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari is
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE DENIED for lack of merit. The Decision dated September 7, 2012 and Resolution dated
PHILIPPINES Plaintiff-Appellee, v. February 11, 2013 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 94340 are AFFIRMED.
MANUEL LIM CHING, Accused-
SO ORDERED.
Appellant.
 Sereno, C.J., (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur.
G.R. No. 213716, October 10, Tijam, J., on official leave.
2017 - JOSE S. RAMISCAL, JR.,
Endnotes:
Petitioner, v. COMMISSION ON
AUDIT, Respondent.
1Rollo, pp. 48-37; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. with

G.R. No. 210612, October 09, Associate Justices Mario V. Lopez and Socorro B. Inting concurring.

2017 - PEOPLE OF THE

2 Id. at 77-85; penned by Executive Presiding Judge Felipe Jesus Torio II.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ERVIN Y. MATEO, EVELYN E. 3 Id. at 39.
MATEO, CARMELITA B. GALVEZ,
ROMEO L. ESTEBAN, GALILEO J. 4 Id. at 40-45.

SAPORSANTOS AND NENITA S.

5 Id. at 46.
SAPORSANTOS, ACCUSED, ERVIN
Y. MATEO, Accused-Appellant. 6 Id. at 49. Respondent Mildred is the daughter of Sostones and respondent

Jesusa Vinarao. Respondents admitted that "the father of Bernardino Gatan is

G.R. No. 223679, September 27,
the brother of the mother of Sostones Vinarao (deceased), husband of
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE
[respondent] Jesusa Vinarao;" thus, Bernardino and Sostones were cousins.
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
WILFREDO LAYUG, NOEL BUAN 7 Id. at 55.

AND REYNALDO LANGIT, Accused,

8 Id. at 48.
WILFREDO LAYUG AND NOEL
BUAN, Accused-Appellants.
9 By then, it appears that Sostones, respondent Jesusa's husband, had

already passed away and was no longer named a defendant in Civil Case No.
G.R. No. 229781, October 10,
22-1061.
2017 - SENATOR LEILA M. DE
LIMA, Petitioner, v. HON. JUANITA 10Rollo, pp. 49-53.
GUERRERO, IN HER CAPACITY AS
PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL 11 Per Tax Declaration No. 1490, id. at 65.

TRIAL COURT OF MUNTINLUPA

12 Id. at 56.
CITY, BRANCH 204, PEOPLE OF
THE PHILIPPINES, P/DIR. GEN.
13 Id. at 61.
RONALD M. DELA ROSA, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS CHIEF OF THE 14 Id. at 62.

PHILIPPINE NATIONAL POLICE,

15 Id. at 63.
PSUPT. PHILIP GIL M. PHILIPPS, IN
HIS CAPACITY AS DIRECTOR,
16 Id. at 58-60; penned by Prosecutor (Pros.) Jersom E. Angog, 4th Assistant
HEADQUARTERS SUPPORT
SERVICE, SUPT. ARNEL Provincial Prosecutor, and approved by Pros. Franklin O. Pagurayan, 1st

JAMANDRON APUD, IN HIS Assistant Provincial Prosecutor, Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Provincial

CAPACITY AS CHIEF, PNP Prosecutor, Ilagan, Isabela.

CUSTODIAL SERVICE UNIT, AND

17Rollo, p. 64.
ALL PERSONS ACTING UNDER
THEIR CONTROL, SUPERVISION, 18 Id. at 84-85.
INSTRUCTION OR DIRECTION IN
RELATION TO THE ORDERS THAT 19 Records, p. 139.

MAY BE ISSUED BY THE COURT,

20Rollo, p. 15.
Respondent.

21 SECTION 1. Filing of Petition with Supreme Court. — A party desiring to

G.R. No. 205665, October 04,
appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court
2017 - REPUBLIC OF THE
of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts
PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, v. METRO
whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified
CEBU PACIFIC* SAVINGS BANK
petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of
AND CORDOVA TRADING POST,
law which must be distinctly set forth.
INC., Respondents.
22 The general rule for petitions filed under Rule 45 admits exceptions, to

G.R. No. 227705, October 11, wit: (1) When the conclusion is a finding grounded entirely on speculation,
2017 - PEOPLE OF THE surmises or conjectures; (2) When the inference made is manifestly
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) Where there is a grave abuse of
HERMIN ROMOBIO Y PAULER, discretion; (4) When the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
Accused-Appellant. (5) When the findings of fact are conflicting; (6) When the Court of Appeals,
in making its findings, went beyond the issues of the case and the same is
G.R. No. 223730, October 04, contrary to the admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) The findings of
2017 - DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING the Court of Appeals are contrary to those of the trial court; (8) When the
AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM) findings of fact are conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which
LIMITED AND/OR CAPT. MANOLO T. they are based; (9) When the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. JULIUS petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondents; and
REY QUINAL DOBLE, Respondent.; (10) The finding of fact of the Court of Appeals is premised on the supposed
G.R. No. 223782 - JULIUS REY absence of evidence and is contradicted by the evidence on record. (Miano v.
QUINAL DOBLE, Petitioner, v. Manila Electric Co., G.R. No. 205035, November 16, 2016.)
DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING
23 721 Phil. 772, 785-787 (2013).
AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM)
LIMITED AND/OR CAPT. MANOLO T. 24Ambray v. Tsourous, G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016, 795 SCRA 627, 641-
GACUTAN, Respondents.
642.

G.R. No. 223730, October 04, 25 750 Phil. 846, 855-856 (2015).

2017 - DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING

26 TSN, September 23, 2008 and TSN, September 30, 2008.
AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM)
LIMITED AND/OR CAPT. MANOLO T.
27 Records, p. 91.
GACUTAN, Petitioners, v. JULIUS
REY QUINAL DOBLE, Respondent.; 28 TSN, November 10, 2008.
G.R. No. 223782 - JULIUS REY
QUINAL DOBLE, Petitioner, v. 29 TSN, February 3, 2009.

DOHLE PHILMAN MANNING

30 TSN, May 5, 2009.
AGENCY, INC., DOHLE (IOM)
LIMITED AND/OR CAPT. MANOLO T. 31Rollo, pp. 81-83.
GACUTAN, Respondents.
32 Id. at 33-36.

G.R. No. 197886, October 04,

33 768 Phil. 593, 598 (2015).
2017 - OFFICE OF THE
OMBUDSMAN, Petitioner, v.
34 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
ANTONIO Z. DE GUZMAN,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 214866, October 02,

2017 - APEX BANCRIGHTS
HOLDINGS, INC., LEAD BANCFUND Back to Home | Back to Main

HOLDINGS, INC., ASIA WIDE

REFRESHMENTS CORPORATION,
MEDCO ASIA INVESTMENT
CORPORATION, ZEST-O
CORPORATION, HARMONY
BANCSHARES HOLDINGS, INC.,
EXCALIBUR HOLDINGS, INC., AND
ALFREDO M. YAO, Petitioners, v.
BANGKO SENTRAL NG PILIPINAS
AND PHILIPPINE DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 217296, October 11,

2017 - SPOUSES ERWIN C.
SANTIAGO AND MARINELA A.
SANTIAGO; SPOUSES GAUDENCIO
A. MANIMTIM, JR. AND EDITHA P.
MANIMTIM; SPOUSES RAMIRO C.
ALBARAN AND ELVA C. ALBARAN;
AND CESAR F. ODAN, Petitioners,
v. NORTHBAY KNITTING, INC.,
Respondent.

A.C. No. 10243, October 02,

2017 - MYRNA OJALES,
Complainant, v. ATTY. OBDULIO
GUY D. VILLAHERMOSA III,
Respondent.

G.R. No. 201622, October 04,

2017 - ANGELITO L. CRISTOBAL,
Petitioner, v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES,
INC., AND LUCIO TAN,
Respondents.

G.R. No. 214059, October 11,

2017 - OSG SHIP MANAGEMENT
MANILA, INC., OSG SHIP
MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD., AND/OR
JOSEPHINE M. AQUINO,
Petitioners, v. ARIS WENDEL R.
MONJE, Respondent.

G.R. No. 200499, October 04,

2017 - SAN FERNANDO COCA-
COLA RANK-AND-FILE UNION
(SACORU), REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRESIDENT, ALFREDO R.
MARAÑON, Petitioner, v. COCA-
COLA BOTTLERS PHILIPPINES,
INC. (CCBPI), Respondent.

G.R. No. 227505, October 02,

2017 - PEOPLE OF THE
PHILIPPINES, Plaintiff-Appellee, v.
ERLINDA RACHO Y SOMERA,
Accused-Appellant.

Copyright © 1995 - 20201995 - 2020 REDiaz