REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
THIRD DIVISION

HEIRS OF GEPHARINE MENDOZA,

Plaintifs-Appellants,

CA-G.R.
CV No.

- ver
sus 055421
RTC Civil Case
7437
For: Annulment of
Sale and
Reconveyance of
Land

SPOUSES LUIS AND LUISA YAP,

Defendants-Appellees
x-------------------------------------x

APPELLEES BRIEF

COMES

NOW

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,

by

the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully

state that:

PREPARATORY STATEMENT

1. Plaintifs-Appellants fled a complaint for

Annulment of

Sale and Reconveyance of Land against the DefendantAppellees at the Regional Trial Court of Iriga on 1997
2. The Regional Trial Court of Iriga dismissed said
complaint

on

the

ground

of

prescription

and

lack

of

clear and convincing evidence, among other grounds.

3. Plaintifs-Appellants fled a notice of appeal and an
appellants brief.
4. Hence, this appellees brief.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On October 11, 1982, the 247-sqm lot in San Isidro,

Iriga City, Camarines Sur, was sold to Mario Mendoza
(Mario) under a deed of absolute sale.
2. Six years later in 1988, Mario ofered to sell the lot to
defendant-appellees spouses Luis and Luisa Yap. On
April 29, 1988, the two parties signed an agreement to
sell prepared by Atty. James Lebron. The agreement
expressly stated that it was to take efect in six (6)

months. The agreement required the Yap spouses to

pay Mario a down payment of P60,000.00 for the
transfer of the lots title to him. And, within six months,
Mario was to clear the lot of structures and occupants
and secure the consent of his estranged wife,
Gepharine Mendoza (Gepharine) to the sale.
3. On January 11, 1989, Mario executed a deed of absolute
1
sale in favor of the Yap spouses.
4. On February 15, 1989, a new title

was issued in the

name of the spouses.

5. On January 28, 1990, Mario passed away, followed by
his wife Gepharine who died nine months afterwards.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. The Trial Court did not err in denying the testimony of

the handwriting expert in claiming that2 the signature of
Gepharine was forged.
2. The Trial Court did not

commit

reversible

error

dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action

against Defendants-Appellees had already prescribed.
ARGUMENTS
The Trial Court did not err
in

denying

of
in

the

the

testimony

handwriting
claiming

signature

of

expert

Gepharine

that

the

in

was forged.

While

the

defendants-appellees

agree

that

the

fnding

of forgery does not depend on the testimony of handwriti

ng
experts and that the judge must make its own fnding as
to
the
the

authenticity

of

the

signatures

the

testimony

of

presented handwriting expert nor the personal determinat

ion
of the judge of the authenticity of said signature were
not
necessary as the plaintif-appellants failed to show cause
for
the admission of such testimony nor the determination of
the
judge because there was no clear and convincing eviden
ce
of fraud,
ron

and

that

the

documents

prepared

by Atty. LeB

enjoys the presumption of regularity, as stated in the case

of
Pan Pacifc Industrial Sales Co., Inc., vs CA :

notarized

evidentiary

document

weight

carries

conferred

upon

the
it

with respect to its due execution, and it

has

in

regularity

its

favor

which

the

may

presumption
only

be

of

rebutted

1 Jimenez vs. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, G.R. No. 140472

2 G.R. No. 125283

by

evidence

so

clear,

strong

and

convincing as to exclude all controversy

as to the falsity of the certifcate. Absent
such,
The

the

presumption

burden

of

proof

presumption

of

due

notarial

document

contesting

the

must be upheld.
to

overcome

execution

lies

same.

on

the

of

the

a
one

Furthermore,

an

allegation of forgery must be proved by

clear

and

whoever

convincing

alleges

it

evidence,

has

the

and

burden

of

proving the same.

This principle is
ence that the

well

set

into

our

jurisprud

defendants-appellants
neither disturb

fnd

no

reason

jurisprudential doctrine
to disturb the

nor

fnd

any

ruling of the Regional

y denying the

Trial

Court

reason
in

admission of such testimony.

The

Trial

commit

did

reversible

not
error

dismissing

in
complaint
that

Court

the

on

the

action

the

ground
against

to

correctl

Defendants-Appellees

had

already prescribed.

The Defendants-Appellants maintain

that article 1391 of
the Civil Code of the Philippines is
the law that should be
applied to the case at hand and not
Article 173 of the Family
Code. Clearly Article 173
Family Code is only

of

the

applicable when there is no consent

given by the spouse or
there are acts committed
husband which tend to

by

the

defraud the wife or impair her inter

est . In the case at hand
it is very clear that there is consen
t given evidenced by the
afdavit accomplished by Gerpharin
e and notarized by Atty.
LeBron, which the PlaintifsAppellants failed to assail and
enjoys the presumption of regularity.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered,

it is respectfully prayed
for that the instant appeal be DENIE
D for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable und

er the premises are
likewise prayed for.

3 Article 173, Family Code of the Philippines

Makati City, 7 June 2014.

By:

Irao & Irao Law

55th foor Tall Building,
6701 Ayala Avenue
Makati City
Tel. No.: 999-9999
frontdesk@iraolaw.com

GENESIS PAUL C. IRAO

PTR. No. 5555555/5.5.2014
IBP Lifetime No. 555555
Roll No. 55555
MCLE Exemption No. III-5555
Tel. No. 999-9999 loc 999
gci@iraolaw.com
Copy Furnished:
Hon. Timothy Duncan
Municipal Trial Court
Iriga City, Camarines Sur
ATTY. MIGUEL GABIONZA
10th Floor, New Building,
Makati Avenue, Makati City

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure)

Filing and service of this Memorandum of Appeal to the

above-mentioned

parties

was

accomplished

through

registered mail since personal service could not be efected

due

to

the

distance

between

the

parties,

and

the

heavy

volume of deliveries of the messengers of the law frm of the

undersigned counsel.

GENESIS PAUL C. IRAO