SECOND DIVISION
ROMEO PALOMA,
Petitioner,
G.R.
No.
145431
November 11, 2003
-versus-
THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS, EDUARDO POBLACION,APOLINARIA PALOMA
VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, RENATO PANIZALES,JONATHAN TICAR,
VICENTE PALOMA AND THE NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, (NBI),
Respondents.
|
R E S O L U T I O
N
QUISUMBING,
J.:
In this Petition
for Review, petitioner seeks to reverse and set aside the Decision[1]
dated June 16, 1994, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 30672
dismissing
his special civil action for certiorari, and also its resolution dated
September 20, 2000, denying his motion for reconsideration.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The factual antecedents
of this petition are as follows:
On December 27, 1991,
herein petitioner Romeo Paloma filed before the Regional Trial Court of
Iloilo City, Branch 27, several complaints for accion publiciana
against
(1) Eduardo Poblacion, Civil Case No. 20168; (2) Narina Paloma Vda. de
Villanueva, Civil Case No. 20169; (3) Renato Panizales, Civil Case No.
20170; and (4) Jonathan Ticar, Civil Case No. 20171.[2]
These cases were consolidated and jointly heard.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents
Apolinaria[3]
Paloma Vda. de Villanueva together with Vicente Paloma were intervenors
in Civil Cases Nos. 20168, 20170 and 20171. Vicente Paloma intervened
in
Civil Case No. 20169 as well.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his complaint, petitioner
averred that he is the absolute and registered owner of a parcel of
land
covered by TCT No. 61166 of the Registry of Deeds of Iloilo. He alleged
that the subject property had been occupied by private respondents on
his
mere tolerance. According to petitioner, he had been repeatedly
demanding
from private respondents to vacate his property because he intends to
develop
and subdivide the property into residential lots which he eventually
intends
to sell. However, he said, his demands fell on deaf ears.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In their respective
answers, private respondents alleged, among others, that the Transfer
Certificate
of Title covering the subject property was obtained by petitioner
through
a falsified or forged deed of sale. They alleged that the signatures of
the seller, Mercedes Padernilla, the late mother of petitioner and
private
respondents Villanueva and Paloma, on said document were forgeries.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On September 25, 1992,
private respondents filed a motion to refer to the National Bureau of
Investigation
(NBI) the questioned document, a deed of sale dated September 15, 1965,
allegedly executed by Mercedes Padernilla in favor of the petitioner
over
the disputed property, for expert handwriting examination using as
basis
or specimen the signatures of Mercedes appearing in the pleadings of
Civil
Case No. 6618 entitled "Mercedes Padernilla v. Romeo Paloma". The
motion
was granted by the trial court in an order dated November 4, 1992.[4]
Petitioner moved for a reconsideration but said motion was denied on
February
8, 1993.[5]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With the denial of his
motion for reconsideration, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari
with a prayer for preliminary injunction with the Court of Appeals,
docketed
as CA-G.R. SP No. 30672 mainly on the ground that the trial court
gravely
abused its discretion when it issued the order to the NBI to use as
basis
or standard specimen the signature of Mercedes Padernilla in Civil Case
No. 6618 for handwriting examination, without first establishing the
genuineness
and due execution of said signature.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On June 16, 1994, the
appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court, thus:
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
At any rate, when
the
law makes use of the phrase "genuineness and due execution of the
instrument",
it means nothing more than that the instrument is not spurious,
counterfeit
or of different import on its case from the one executed (Bough vs.
Canterverios,
40 Phil. 213). The phrase "genuineness and due execution of the
instrument"
is conspicuous in its absence in the questioned deed of sale. Hence, in
the case at bar, said deed or instrument may be considered spurious, if
not falsified.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Moreover, it is
now
universally established that genuine writings or signatures which are
"part
of the records" may be compared by the Court with the disputed
signature
or writing (20 Am. Jur. 705). Consequently, the respondent Judge in
this
case correctly ruled that the signature of Mercedes Padernilla found in
Civil Case No. 6618 should be treated as her standard specimen that
will
serve as the basis of comparison with the signature found in the
questioned
deed of sale by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
ACCORDINGLY, in
the
light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for certiorari
cannot
be given due course, as it is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. We
make
no pronouncement as to costs.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.[6]
Petitioner duly filed a
motion for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals denied on
September
20, 2000.[7]
Hence, this petition
where petitioner assigns the following errors:
(1) THE
HONORABLE
COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT CERTIORARI WAS NOT THE
PROPER REMEDY OF PETITIONER DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE HONORABLE QUIRICO
G. DEFENSOR, AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE TRIAL COURT, CLEARLY ACTED WITH
GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION EQUIVALENT TO LACK AND/OR EXCESS OF
JURISDICTION
WHEN HE GRANTED THE MOTION TO REFER TO NBI FOR EXPERT EXAMINATION THE
DEED
OF SALE BETWEEN PETITIONER AND HIS DECEASED MOTHER, MERCEDES
PADERNILLA,
WITHOUT FIRST ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE
SIGNATURES
OFFERED BY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS AS STANDARD OR SPECIMEN SIGNATURES OF
MERCEDES
PADERNILLA.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2) THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE
MAY BE CONSIDERED SPURIOUS, IF NOT FALSIFIED, BECAUSE "THE PHRASE
'GENUINENESS
AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE INSTRUMENT' IS CONSPICUOUS IN ITS ABSENCE IN
THE
QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(3) THE HONORABLE
COURT
OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ALLEGED SIGNATURES OF
MERCEDES
PADERNILLA FOUND IN CIVIL CASE NO. 6618 SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE
STANDARD
OR SPECIMEN SIGNATURES IN THE EXAMINATION OF THE SIGNATURE OF MERCEDES
PADERNILLA APPEARING ON THE QUESTIONED DEED OF SALE BY THE NATIONAL
BUREAU
OF INVESTIGATION BECAUSE THEY ARE SUPPOSEDLY "PART OF THE RECORDS".chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(4) THE ASSAILED
DECISION
AND RESOLUTION OF THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS HAVE BEEN MOOTED BY
THE
DECISION OF THE HONORABLE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF ILOILO CITY, BRANCH
36,
IN CIVIL CASE NOS. 20168 TO 20171, INCLUSIVE, DECLARING THE QUESTIONED
DEED OF SALE TO BE VALID, EFFECTIVE, AND AUTHENTIC.[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At issue is whether the
Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order granting
private
respondents' motion to refer the disputed signature of Mercedes
Padernilla
in the deed of sale to the NBI for handwriting examination, without
first
establishing the due execution and genuineness of the documents as well
as the signatures offered by private respondents as standard or
specimen
signatures of Padernilla. Further, also at issue is whether the
controversy
raised before the appellate court has become moot.
Petitioner contends
that while he is not averse to referring the deed of sale for
handwriting
examination by the NBI to resolve the issue of forgery of Mercedes
Padernilla's
signature in the deed of sale, it is only proper that the due execution
and authenticity of the documents offered by private respondents and
the
genuineness of the alleged signatures of Padernilla appearing in the
deed
of quitclaim, must first be established. He claims that the genuineness
of a signature, pursuant to Section 22,[9]
Rule 132 of the Revised
Rules of Court, is established either: (a) when the signature is
admitted
or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence respecting
the handwriting is offered (petitioner in this case); or (b) when the
signature
is proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge. He maintains
that private respondents failed to show, through any of these modes,
that
the purported specimen signatures they offered were genuine. Petitioner
further argues that the assailed decision and resolution of the
appellate
court may have been mooted by the decision of the trial court on March
29, 1999 in Civil Cases Nos. 20168 to 20171, upholding the validity and
authenticity of the questioned deed of sale.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Private respondents,
for their part, argue that it is now universally established that
genuine
writings or signatures which are part of the records, may be compared
by
the court with a disputed writing or signature. They also claim that
signatures
of Padernilla appearing in the deed of quitclaim were attached to the
motion
for handwriting examination. These signatures are in notarial documents
and are found in the records of Civil Case No. 6618. According to
private
respondents, these facts proved to the satisfaction of the trial court
that said signatures are genuine and should thus be treated as standard
specimen signatures of Mercedes Padernilla. Private respondents further
contend that the order requiring handwriting examination was not mooted
by the trial court's subsequent decision upholding the validity and
authenticity
of the questioned deed of sale. Said decision is not yet final, they
said,
as it was elevated by way of appeal to the Court of Appeals on May 24,
2000.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
At the outset, we note
that the appellate court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed
petitioner's special civil action in its decision dated June 16, 1994.
We also note that on March 29, 1999, the trial court rendered a
decision
in Civil Cases Nos. 20168 to 20171 declaring, inter alia, that the deed
of sale between petitioner and Mercedes Padernilla, as valid and
effective.
It further held that the purported signatures of Padernilla in the deed
of quitclaim was of doubtful authenticity.[11]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In our view, the issue
of whether the trial court acted with grave abuse of discretion when it
granted the motion for handwriting examination, using as basis the
purported
signatures of Padernilla which have not been previously established to
be genuine, has become moot and academic. Where the issue has become
moot
and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, thereby rendering
the
resolution of the same of no practical use or value.[12]
Moreover, the appellate court was asked merely to determine whether the
trial court committed grave abuse of discretion when it granted
petitioner's
motion. The genuineness and due execution of the questioned deed of
sale
is a distinct matter. The issue of genuineness of the signature
appearing
in the deed of sale is properly the subject of private respondents'
appeal
of the trial court's Decision before the Court of Appeals.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, the instant
petition is DENIED for being moot.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Bellosillo,
Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr. and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 44-47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Id. at 49-66.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Also known as "Narina."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Rollo, pp. 84-86.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Id. at 95-97.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Id. at 46-47.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 48.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id. at 22.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[9]
9. SEC. 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 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.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Pending appeal docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 69360.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Rollo, pp. 153-155.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Garcia v. Commission on Elections, G.R. No. 121139, 12 July 1996, 258
SCRA
754, 757.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |