198 SCRA 472

7/21/2015 G.R.No.84464

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_84464_1991.html 1/3

TodayisTuesday,July21,2015

RepublicofthePhilippinesSUPREMECOURT

Manila

FIRSTDIVISION

G.R.No.84464June21,1991

SPOUSESJAIMEANDTEODORAVILLANUEVA,petitioners,vs.THEHONORABLECOURTOFAPPEALSandCATALINAI.SANCHEZ,respondents.

FrancoL.Loyolaforpetitioners.

CRUZ,J.:

TheRegionalTrialCourtofCavitedismissedacomplaintfortheannulmentofadeedofsale,holdingthatitwasnotspurious.ItwasreversedbytheCourtofAppeals,whichfoundthatthevendor'ssignatureonthequestioneddocumenthadindeedbeenforged.Thepetitionersarenowbeforeusandurgethatthedecisionofthetrialcourtbereinstated.

In her complaint below, herein private respondent Catalina Sanchez, claiming to be the widow of RobertoSanchez,averredthatherhusbandwastheownerofa275sq.meterparceloflandlocatedatRosario,Cavite,whichwasregisteredwithoutherknowledgeinthenameof thehereinpetitionersonthestrengthofanallegeddeed of sale executed in their favor by her late husband on February 7, 1968. Involving the report of ahandwritingexpertfromthePhilippineConstabularyCriminalInvestigationService,whofoundthatthesignatureon the document was written by another person, she prayed that the deed of sale be annulled, that theregistrationofthelotinthenameofthepetitionersbecancelled,andthatthelotbereconveyedtoher.1

In their answer, the petitioners questioned the personality of the private respondent to file the complaint,contendingthat the lateRobertoSanchezwasnevermarriedbuthadacommonlawwifebywhomhehadtwochildren.Onthemerits,theyclaimedthatRobertoSanchezhaddeededoverthelottothemin1968forthesumofP500.00 inpartialsettlementofa judgment theyhadobtainedagainsthim.TheyhadsuedhimafterhehadfailedtopayaP1,300.00loantheyhadsecuredforhimandwhichtheyhadbeenforcedtosettlethemselvestopreventforeclosureofthemortgageontheirproperty.2

Onthepetitioner'smotion,thetrialcourtrequiredtheexaminationofthedeedofsalebytheNationalBureauofInvestigationtodetermineifitwasaforgery.Trialproceededinduetime,withthepresentationbythepartiesoftheirtestimonialanddocumentaryevidence.OnJune25,1986,JudgeAlejandroC.Silapanrenderedjudgmentinfavorofthepetitioners.

Inhisdecision,3 the trial judgerejected the testimonyof thehandwritingexperts fromthePCand theNBI,whohad both testified that the standard signature of the lateRobertoSanchez and the onewritten on the allegeddeedofsale"werewrittenbytwodifferentpeople."HecitedGoFayv.BankofthePhilippineIslands4 insupportof his action. Explaining the supposed differences between the signatures, he said thatRobertoSanchezwas"underseriousemotionalstressandintenselyangry"whenhereluctantlysignedthedocumentafterhehadlostthe case to them, "with the added fact that they only wanted to accept his lot for P500.00 and not for thesettlement of theentire obligationofP1,300.00."At that, he said therewere really no fundamental differencesbetween the signatures compared. Moreover, the signatures examined were from 1970 to 1982 and did notincludethosewrittenbyRobertoSanchezin1968.

ThedecisionalsonotedthatRobertoSanchezdidnottakeanysteptoannulthedeedofsalealthoughhehadknowledgethereofasearlyas1968.HethusallowedhisactiontoprescribeunderArticle1431oftheCivilCode.As for the contract of a marriage submitted by the private respondent, this should also be rejected becausealthoughthedocumentwasdatedSeptember21,1964,theTorrenscertificateissuedtoRobertoSanchezoverthesubjectlandonAugust25,1965,describedhiscivilstatusas"single."Itwasalsodoubtfulifshecouldbringtheactionforreconveyancealone,evenassumingshewasthesurvivingspouseofRobertoSanchez,considering

7/21/2015 G.R.No.84464

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_84464_1991.html 2/3

thatheleftillegitimatechildrenandcollateralrelativeswhowerealsoentitledtoshareinhisestate.

Asearlierstated, thedecisionwasreversedby theCourtofAppeals,5whichheld that the trialcourtdiderr,ascontended by the appellant, in holding that the deed of salewas not spurious that the action to annul it hadalreadyprescribedthatCatalinaSanchezwasnotthewidowofRobertoSanchezandthatshehadnocapacitytoinstitutethecomplaint.

Beforeusnow,thepetitionersfaulttherespondentcourtfor:a)upholdingthetestimonyoftheexpertwitnessesagainstthefindingsoffactofthetrialcourtb)annullingthedeedofsalec)declaringthattheactiontoannulthedeed of sale had not yet prescribed d) not declaring the private respondent guilty of estoppel and e) notsustainingthedecisionofthetrialcourt.

WeseenoreasontodisturbthejudgmentoftheCourtofAppeals.Itisconsonantwiththeevidenceofrecordandtheapplicablelawandjurisprudence.

TheCourtnotesattheoutsetthatCatalinaSanchezhasprovedherstatusasthewidowofRobertoSanchezwithhersubmissionof themarriagecontractdenominatedasExhibit "A."6Thatevidencerenderedunnecessary thepresumption that "amanandawomandeporting themselves as husbandandwife haveentered into a lawfulcontract of marriage" and may also explain why Roberto Sanchez could not marry the woman by whom hesupposedlyhadtwoillegitimatechildren,assumingthesepersonsdidexist.ItisstrangethatthetrialcourtshouldrejectExhibit"A"infavoroftheTransferCertificateofTitledescribingRobertoSanchezas"single,"7disregardingthe elementary principle that the best documentary evidence of a marriage is the marriage contract itself. ATorrenscertificateisthebestevidenceofownershipofregisteredland,notofthecivilstatusoftheowner.

As the surviving spouse of Roberto Sanchez, the private respondent could validly file the complaint for therecovery of her late husband's property, without prejudice to the succession rights of his other heirs.Parenthetically,(andcuriously),althoughthesupposedcommonlawwifeandherillegitimatechildrenwereneverpresentedatthetrial,theirexistencewasreadilyacceptedbythetrialcourtonthebasisaloneofthepetitioner'sunsupportedstatements.

Comingnowtothequestionedsignature,wefinditsignificantthattheexaminationbytheNBIwasrequestedbythepetitionersthemselvesbutintheenditwastheprivaterespondentwhopresentedtheNBIhandwritingexpertas her own witness.8 The explanation is obvious. The petitioners hoped to refute the findings of the PChandwriting expertwith the findings of theNBI handwriting expert, but as it turned out the findings of the twowitnessescoincided.BothPCExaminerCorazonSalvadorandNBIExaminerZenaidaJ.Torresexpressed theinformedviewthatthesignatureonthedeedofsalewasnotwrittenbyRobertoSanchez.9

They did not conjure this conclusion out of thin air but supported it with knowledgeable testimony extensivelygivenondirectandcrossexaminationonthevariouscharacteristicsanddifferencesof thesignaturestheyhadexaminedandcompared.10ThetrialjudgesaidthetestimonyofPCExaminerSalvadorwasnotreliablebecauseher examination of the document was "done under circumstance not so trustworthy before the action wasinstituted." But he did not consider the fact that her findingswere corroborated byNBI Examiner Torres, whoconductedherownexaminationattheinstanceofthepetitionersthemselvesandaftertheactionwasinstituted.Itisworthnotingthatthecompetenceofthetwoexpertwitnesseswasneverassailedbythepetitionersnorwasitquestioned by the trial judge. The petitioners also did not present their own handwriting expert to refute thefindingsofthegovernmenthandwritingexperts.

TheCourthasitselfexaminedthesignaturesofRobertoSanchezintheseveralinstrumentsamongtherecordsofthiscase,includingthosedatingbacktobefore196811andisinclinedtoacceptthefindingsofthehandwritingexperts.Thecaseinvokedbythepetitionersisnotapplicablebecausethedifferencesinthesignaturescomparedinthecaseatbarwere,asthetrialjudgefound,causednotbytimebutbythetensiongrippingRobertoSanchezwhenhesignedthedeedofsale.

Incidentally, thepetitionershavenotsufficientlyestablishedthereasonforsuchtension,whichappears tobeamere conjectureof the trial judge.1 a v v p h i1Noproofwas submittedabout their filingof the complaint againstRobertoSanchez.PetitionerJaimeVillanuevahimselfadmittedunderoath thathedidnot read thedecision in thecasenordidheaskhislawyerhowmuchhadbeenawardedagainstthedefendant.12NobodytestifiedaboutRoberto'sstateofmindwhenheallegedlysignedthedocument,andinManilaatthatalthoughthepersonswereresidinginCavite.EventhewitnessestotheBilihanwerenotpresentednorwasanyexplanationfortheirabsenceoffered.

Theexplanationgivenbythepetitionersfortheirdelayinregisteringthedeedofsaleisnotconvincing.Thatdelaylastedforallofthirteenyears.Thepetitionerssuggesttheyaresimplepeasantsanddidnotappreciatetheneedfor the immediate transfer of the property in their name.Theyalso say that they forgot. Theevidence shows,however,thattheyunderstoodtheneedforregisteringtheirpropertyforpurposesofusingitascollateralincasetheywantedtoborrowmoney.ItwouldappearthattheythoughtofsimulatingthesaleregisteringthesubjectlotwhentheirownlandswereinsufficienttosecureaP100,000.00loantheirdaughterwantedtoborrow.

7/21/2015 G.R.No.84464

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1991/jun1991/gr_84464_1991.html 3/3

Concerningthequestionofprescription,wefindthattheapplicableruleisnotArticle1391oftheCivilCodebutArticle1410.Article1391provides that theaction forannulmentofacontractprescribes in fouryears incaseswhere theviceconsistsof intimidation, violence,undue influence,mistake, fraudor lackcapacity.Thedeedofsaleinquestiondoesnotsufferfromanyofthesedefects.Thesupposedvendee'ssignaturehavingbeenprovedtobeaforgery,theinstrumentistotallyvoidorinexistentas"absolutelysimulatedorfictitious"underArticle1409of theCivil Code. According to Article 1410, "the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of acontractdoesnotprescribe."

Finally, petitioners invoke Article 1431 of the Civil Code and contend that the respondent court erred in notdeclaring the private respondent and her late husband estopped from questioning the deed of sale until afterfourteenyears from itsexecution.The inference thatRobertoSanchezand theprivate respondentknewaboutthe instrument from that date has not been proved by the evidence of record. Moreover, we fail to see theapplicability of Article 1431,which provides that "through estoppel an admission or representation is renderedconclusiveuponthepersonmakingitandcannotbedeniedordisprovedasagainstthepersonrelyingthereon."Neithertheprivaterespondentnorherlatehusbandhasmadeanyadmissionorrepresentationtothepetitionersregardingthesubjectlandthattheyaresupposedtohavereliedupon.

Ourownfindingisthatthepetitionershavenotprovedthevalidityandauthenticityofthedeedofsaleoreventhecircumstances that supposedly led to its execution by the late Roberto Sanchez. On the contrary, we areconvincedfromthetestimoniesofthehandwritingexpertsthathissignaturehadbeenforgedonthequestioneddocumentandthathehadnotconveyedthesubjectlandtothepetitioners.Thedeedofsalebeingaforgery,itwas totally void or inexistent and so could be challenged at any time, the action for its nullification beingimprescriptible. The private respondent, as the widow of Roberto Sanchez, has the capacity to sue for therecoveryofthelandinquestionandisnotestoppedfromdoingso.

WHEREFORE,thepetitionisDENIEDandthechallengeddecisionisAFFIRMED,withcostsagainstthepetitioners.

SOORDERED.

Narvasa,GrioAquinoandMedialdea,JJ.,concur.Gancayco,J.,isonleave.

Footnotes1Rollo,pp.2326.2Ibid.,pp.3235.3Id.,pp.3643.446Phil.968.5Aldecoa,Jr.,J.,ponenteTensuanandVictor,JJ.,concurring.6ExhibitsforthePlaintiff.p.1.7Ibid.,ExhibitB,p.2.6TSN,February17,1986,pp.2425.8TSN,February25,1985,pp.32339TSN,February25,1985,pp.3233TSN,February17,1986,p.5010TSN,February25,1985,pp.3339TSN,February17,1986,pp.3950TSN,April30,1986,pp.2130.11Exhibit"A,"ExhibitsforthePlaintiff,p.1Exhibit7,ExhibitsfortheDefendants,P.167.12TSN,May30,1985,p.43.

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation