Baconawa, Dewmabel R.

Laniba, Louela L.

BL-3
BL-3

EVIDENCE
(Case Digest)

G.R. No. 198240

July 3, 2013

LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS*, Petitioner,

vs.
THE HEIRS OF THE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., respondents
FACTS:
Petitioner discovered that respondents are claiming exclusive
ownership of the subject lot which was left by their ascendants. Respondents
based their claim on the Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property where Andres,
Sr. donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr.
Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters, through Assistant
Fiscal Andres Marcos, requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit.
The PNP handwriting expert PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.s
signature on the affidavit and the submitted standard signatures of Andres,
Sr. were not written by one and the same person.
Thus, the sisters sued the respondents for annulment of the deed of
donation before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Masbate and respondents
moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness. They argued that the RTC did
not authorize the handwriting examination of the affidavit.
The RTC granted respondents motion and disqualified PO2 Alvarez as a
witness. The RTC ruled that PO2 Alvarezs supposed testimony would be
hearsay as she has no personal knowledge of the alleged handwriting of
Andres, Sr.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the RTC is correct in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as an
expert witness.
RULING:
As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive
and make known her perception to others. We have no doubt that she is
qualified as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness since she
possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the Rules.
Respondents motion to disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC
for it was not based on any of these grounds for disqualification. The RTC
rather confused the qualification of the witness with the credibility and
weight of her testimony.
Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence is clear that
the opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence.
1

Thus, we disagree with the RTC that PO2 Alvarezs testimony would be
hearsay. Under Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, PO2 Alvarez is
allowed to render an expert opinion, as the PNP document examiner was
allowed in Tamani. But the RTC already ruled at the outset that PO2 Alvarezs
testimony is hearsay even before her testimony is offered and she is called
to the witness stand.
In sum, the RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness.
She has the qualifications of witness and possess none of the
disqualifications under the Rules. The Rules allow the opinion of an expert
witness to be received as evidence. In Tamani, we used the opinion of an
expert witness. The value of P02 Alvarez's expert opinion cannot be
determined if P02 Alvarez is not even allowed to testify on the handwriting
examination she conducted.

G.R. No. 171497

April 4, 2011

MARIA LOURDES TAMANI, CONCEPCION TAMANI, ESTRELLA TAMANI,

TERESITA TAMANI, AZUCENA SOLEDAD, DOLORES GUERRERO,
CRISTINA
TUGADE
DAMIETA
MANSAANG,
MANUEL
TAMANI,
VALERIANA CASTRO, AURORA SANTIAGO and ROSARIO CASTILLO,
Petitioners,
vs.
ROMAN SALVADOR and FILOMENA BRAVO, Respondents.

FACTS:
A complaint for quieting of title was filed by the respondents against
the petitioner over a 431 sq. m. parcel of land which was inherited by the
petitioners from their parents, Demetrio Tamani and Josefa Caddauan
(Spouses Tamani).
Respondents and spouses Tamani are co-owners of an undivided parcel
of land. Spouses Tamani allegedly sold their share to Milagros Cruz (Cruz)
and Cruz sold said property to respondents. Respondents thus acquire
ownership over the whole property.
At the RTC, petitioners filed an answer wherein they argued that they
were the lawful owners and were in actual possession of the disputed
property. They also contends that the signature of their parents were forged
and thus assail the validity of the deed of sale between Cruz and their
parents.
During trial, at the instance of petitioners, the signature of Demetrio
Tamani appearing on the deed of sale and his standard signatures were
submitted for examination and comparison to the Questioned Documents
Division of the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Bienvenido C. Albacea
(Albacea), a document examiner of the NBI, filed a Report (NBI report)
finding that "the questioned and standard signatures "DEMETRIO TAMANI"
are WRITTEN by one and the same person. Dissatisfied with the NBI report,
petitioners asked for another examination of the signatures, this time
submitting the same to the Philippine National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory
Service. Mely Sorra (Sorra), a document examiner of the PNP, filed a Report
(PNP report) finding that "the questioned signature of DEMETRIO TAMANI
marked Q appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 17, 1959
and the standard signatures of Demetrio Tamani marked S-1 to S-11 and
S-19 WERE WRITTEN BY TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS."
The RTC rendered a decision in petitioners favor. Confronted with
conflicting testimonies from handwriting experts, the RTC gave more weight
to the PNP report and testimony of Sorra because of her educational,
professional and work background.
Respondents file a Notice of Appeal. The CA issued a decision ruling in
respondents favor. The CA ruled that the RTC erred when it relied solely on
Sorras educational, professional and work background when it decided to
give more credence to the PNP report.
ISSUE:
3

Whether or not The honorable Court of Appeals disused the proper role
of an appellate court in cases where there are conflicting expert testimonies
and improperly interpreted their duty to independently evaluate the
authenticity of the signature of the late demetrio tamani.
RULING:
The manner by which the RTC disposed of the issue leaves much to be
desired. While credentials of an expert witness play a factor in the
evidentiary and persuasive weight of his testimony, the same cannot be the
sole factor in determining its value. The CA was thus correct when it declared
that the judge must conduct his own independent examination of the
signatures under scrutiny.
The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his
mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the
assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics
and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing
which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed
observer. While admittedly this Court was unable to fully comprehend all the
differences noted by Sorra given that her testimony was fairly technical in
nature and description, it would, however, not be amiss to state that this
Court has observed a good number of the differences noted by her.
Moreover, while We are not unmindful of the testimony of Albacea, the
document examiner from the NBI, this Court is more inclined to believe the
findings of Sorra, because unlike Albacea, Sorra limited her examination to
Exhibits "S-1 to S-11" and "S-19." Albacea, on the other hand, considered all
19 specimen signatures. Noticeably, Exhibits "S-12" to "S-18" were executed
several years apart from the questioned signature which was supposedly
written in 1959. However, the dates of execution of Exhibits "S-12" to "S-18"
covered years ranging from 1933 to 1952 and 1974. Thus, this Court finds
that Sorra was correct when she opted to disregard the said Exhibits in her
examination. Lastly, while it was improper for the RTC to rely solely on
Sorras credentials, her superior credentials, compared to that of Albacea,
give added value to her testimony.

G.R. No. 179323

November 28, 2011

VICENTE MANZANO, JR., Petitioner,

vs.
MARCELINO GARCIA, Respondent.

FACTS:
The subject parcel of land has an area of six thousand nine hundred
fifty-one (6,951) square meters and was the subject of the deed of pacto de
retro sale allegedly executed by the respondent, Marcelino Garcia (Garcia), in
favor of Constacio Manzano, the predecessor-in-interest and brother of the
petitioner Vicente Manzano, Jr. (Vicente).
Marcelino passed away and the subject property was adjudicated to his
heir and Vicente was named the administrator.
Garcia did not redeem the subject property within the period provided
in the contract. Consequently, Vicente instituted a petition for consolidation
of ownership over the property. Garcia filed an opposition and answer,
alleging that the document evidencing the pacto de retro sale was a forgery.
The petitioner also filed a complaint for annulment of pacto de retro sale and
recovery of the owners title with preliminary injunction against Vicente.
During the trial, Vicente presented TCT No. T-25464 and Tax
Declaration No. 41672 to prove the due execution of the pacto de retro sale,
which was recorded in the office of the Register of Deeds of Cagayan de Oro
City. Garcia testified that the signatures appearing in the pacto de retro sale
were not his and his wifes. He presented his passport and drivers license,
both of which bear an entirely different signature than what appeared in the
pacto de retro sale document.
Atty. Demosthenes Mediante, Jr. (Atty. Mediante), the person who
notarized the deed of conveyance in question, testified that the Marcelino
Garcia who appeared in his office and who executed the pacto de retro sale
is not the same Marcelino Garcia who was in court during the trial of the
case. Perla Babano, one of the witnesses to the execution of the pacto de
retro sale, likewise testified that the person who introduced himself as
Marcelino G. Garcia and signed the document is not the same Marcelino
Garcia who was in court during the trial of the case.
The trial court rendered its Decision on the consolidated cases in favor
of Vicente. The trial court held that Garcia failed to prove that his signature
in the pacto de retro sale was forged. According to the court, Garcia should
have presented an expert witness to determine whether the signatures were
made by the same person. The trial court doubted the testimonies of Atty.
Mediante (the notary public) and Babano (one of the witnesses to the pacto
de retro sale).
Garcia sought recourse with the Court of Appeals. The appellate court
rendered the assailed decision reversing that of the trial court. According to
the Court of Appeals, there is no rule requiring expert testimony to
determine the genuineness of a signature appearing on a document. Since it
was plainly obvious from the
5

evidence on record that the signature appearing on the pacto de retro

sale is far different from the customary signature of Garcia that appeared in
his passport and drivers license, the testimony of Garcia that the signature
was not his is sufficient evidence of the forgery pursuant to Section 50, Rule
130 of the Rules of Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not there is no need of a handwriting expert to determine
which document is forged when the questioned signatures appear obviously
far different from the customary or standard signature of the person claiming
forgery.
RULING:
In the fairly recent case of Pontaoe v. Pontaoe, this Court held:
The trial court may validly determine forgery from its own
independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand.
This the trial court judge can do without necessarily resorting to
experts, especially when the question involved is mere
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined
by a visual comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures
with those of the currently existing ones. Section 22 of Rule 132
of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to
make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "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.
In the case at bar, however, the variance in the alleged signature of
Garcia in the pacto de retro sale, on one hand, and in the evidence on record
and in the verifications of the pleadings before this Court and the courts a
quo, on the other hand, was enormous and obvious, such that this Court can
readily conclude that the pacto de retro sale was in all likelihood made by
someone who has not even seen the customary signature of Garcia.
Furthermore, the falsity of the signature on the pacto de retro sale was
affirmed by two persons present when the instrument was signed, one of
which is the very person who notarized the same. An examination of their
testimonies reveals that the trial court had disregarded their statements for
very flimsy reasons.

G.R. No. 165318

April 22, 2008

TEODORA A. PONTAOE and EDUARDO A. PONTAOE, petitioners,

vs.
AMANDO A.
respondents.

PONTAOE

and

DR.

ALEJANDRO

G.

PONTAOE,

FACTS:
Teodora Pontaoe, Eduardo Pontaoe and Amando Pontaoe are full-blood
children of Juan Pontaoe and his second wife, Tomasa Aquino. Dr. Alejandro
Pontaoe is the nephew of Teodora, Eduardo and Amando. He is the only child
of their late half-brother, Norberto, son of Juan and his first wife.
Juan and Dr. Alejandro were the registered co-owners of a 48,144square meter parcel of land. Juan was the registered co-owner of one-half of
the eastern portion of the land while Dr. Alejandro, the other half of the
western portion. The spouses Juan and Tomasa allegedly executed a Deed of
Conveyance over the one-half eastern portion in favor of their son Eduardo.
Allegedly a Deed of Quitclaim executed by Dr. Alejandro vested
Eduardo with ownership over the one-half western portion. Afterwards,
Eduardo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the entire property in favor
of his sister, Teodora.
On June 23, 1980, a Deed of Absolute Sale was allegedly executed by
Tomasa Aquino also in favor of Teodora Pontaoe over another parcel of land
comprising 17,077 square meters. TCT No. 134602 was issued in Teodoras
name.
Amando and Dr. Alejandro, claim that the signatures appearing in the
Deed of Conveyance were not Juan and Tomasa's signatures. They also claim
that the signature appearing in the Deed of Quitclaim allegedly executed on
May 11, 1971 is not the signature of Dr. Alejandro. Likewise, the signature
appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly executed on June 23, 1980
was not the signature of Tomasa. Hence, the Deed of Conveyance, Deed of
Quitclaim and Deed of Absolute Sale are invalid and there was no valid
transfer of ownership to Eduardo and Teodora. The properties should then be
co-owned by Eduardo, Teodora, Amando and Dr. Alejandro as heirs of the late
spouses Juan and Tomasa.
The trial court found out that the signature of Juan appearing in the
Deed of Conveyance was substantially different from his admittedly genuine
and authentic signatures. The trial court likewise ruled that, with respect to
the Deed of Quitclaim, the signature of Dr. Alejandro had marked differences
from the signatures which were undisputably affixed by him in other
documents.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the RTC with
respect to the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 134602. It declared that
Tomasa as the absolute and exclusive owner had the right to transfer
ownership of the property to Teodora.
Teodora and Eduardo contend that the Court of Appeals and the trial
court erred in ruling that the signatures of Juan and Dr. Alejandro were
forgeries. They argue that the courts should have employed handwriting
7

experts and not merely made their own findings based solely on their
examination and comparison of the signatures.
On the other hand, Amando and Dr. Alejandro contend that the finding
of the trial court and the Court of Appeals that the signatures of Juan and Dr.
Alejandro were forged is a finding of fact which is binding on this Court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not it is necessary to have employed a handwriting experts
and should not merely made their own findings based solely on their
examination and comparison of the signatures.

RULING:
As to the argument that handwriting experts should have been
employed, handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of
forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing
them, but resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the
examination or the comparison of handwritings. A finding of forgery does not
depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the
judge must conduct an examination of the questioned signature in order to
arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. The opinions of
handwriting experts are not binding upon courts, especially when the
question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can
be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned
signatures with those of the currently existing ones. Moreover, Section 22 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court likewise explicitly authorizes the court, by
itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "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.