Gomez v. Gomez-Samson
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner, as Special Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Consuelo Gomez, filed two cases seeking to declare two Deeds of Donation Inter Vivos as null and void. Petitioner alleged that the signatures of Consuelo Gomez were forged and that the notarial acknowledgments were antedated. In Civil Case No. 36089, Consuelo allegedly donated real properties to respondents Maria Rita Gomez-Samson and Jesus B. Gomez. In Civil Case No. 36090, Consuelo allegedly donated personal properties to respondents Ariston A. Gomez, Sr. and Ariston B. Gomez, Jr. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaints and ordered petitioner and the estate of Consuelo Gomez to pay damages to Ariston Gomez, Jr. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC's decision. Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Petitioner sought to overturn the findings of the Court of Appeals, arguing that its decision was based on a misapprehension of facts and that it seriously erred in disregarding the expert opinion of the NBI representative and in giving credence to the testimonies of the respondents' witnesses and the notary public.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deeds of Donation were falsified or intercalated. Whether the expert testimony of the NBI document examiner was given due weight. Whether the alleged unusual circumstances surrounding the execution and notarization of the deeds were sufficient to prove falsification. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the petitioner sufficiently proved fraud. Whether the donor's tax was paid before the death of Consuelo Gomez. Whether the testimony of the notary public was credible. Whether the petitioner is liable for damages.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals with modification. The Court deleted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees in favor of Ariston Gomez, Jr.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of falsification and intercalation of the Deeds of Donation: The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the Deeds of Donation were falsified or intercalated. The Court gave more weight to the testimony of the respondents' expert witness, Francisco Cruz, who concluded that the documents were typed in one continuous sitting and that it was impossible to determine which came first (signature or typing) due to the lack of clear intersections. This was contrasted with the NBI expert's testimony, which the trial court found to be less convincing due to admitted limitations and the lack of definitive findings on certain aspects. The Court reiterated that findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the Supreme Court, and the exceptions to this rule were not sufficiently established by the petitioner. On the weight and credibility of expert witnesses: The Court emphasized that while positive evidence is generally more credible than negative evidence, the process by which expert witnesses arrive at their conclusions must be carefully examined. In this case, the Court found the respondent's expert's conclusion that it was impossible to determine the order of typing and signing to be more in consonance with the cited authorities, as there were no clear intersections between the handwritten signatures and the typewritten text. The Court also noted that the NBI expert's findings were based on limited evidence and that the trial court was in a better position to assess the credibility of the witnesses. On the alleged patent irregularities on the face of the Deeds of Donation and the alleged unusual circumstances relative to the execution and notarization: The Court found that the alleged irregularities, such as the use of letter-size paper, single spacing, and small margins, were not sufficient to prove fraud or foul play. The Court reasoned that these could be attributed to the inexperience of the non-lawyer who prepared the documents and a preference for brevity. The Court also found the explanation regarding the use of a single typewriter for the entire document, including the notarial acknowledgment, to be plausible, as it is common practice for the notary public to simply fill in their details. The Court concluded that these irregularities were more apparent than real and did not affect the validity of the deeds. The Court also found the alleged unusual circumstances, such as the timing of the notarization before Consuelo's departure for the US, the choice of a notary public from Quezon City, and the payment in cash, to be not sufficiently suspicious to prove falsification. The Court reasoned that people may have various reasons for their actions, including a desire for confidentiality or a calculated gamble on the notary's availability. The Court also found the explanation for the belated transfer of properties to be satisfactory, stating that ownership is acquired by donation, not by the registration of titles, and that the donor's intent for confidentiality could explain the delay. On the circumstantial evidence presented by the petitioner: The Court found that the alleged irregularities, such as the use of letter-size paper, single spacing, and small margins, were not sufficient to prove fraud or foul play. The Court reasoned that these could be attributed to the inexperience of the non-lawyer who prepared the documents and a preference for brevity. The Court also found the explanation regarding the use of a single typewriter for the entire document, including the notarial acknowledgment, to be plausible, as it is common practice for the notary public to simply fill in their details. The Court concluded that these irregularities were more apparent than real and did not affect the validity of the deeds. On the payment of donor's tax before the death of Consuelo Gomez: The Court found that the petitioner failed to prove that the donor's tax was paid after Consuelo's death. While the petitioner presented a BIR certification dated December 4, 1979, indicating payment on that date, the respondents presented evidence showing that the Donor's Tax Return was filed and received by the BIR on October 8, 1979, and a check from Consuelo was issued on October 9, 1979. The Court noted that the petitioner did not present the BIR official who issued the certification to explain the consecutive receipt numbers or the phrase "on even date." The Court held that the burden of proof was on the petitioner to show falsification, and mere conjectures were insufficient. On the credibility of the notary public, Jose Sebastian: The Court upheld the credibility of the notary public, Jose Sebastian. The Court noted that petitioner could not impeach his own witness, Jose Sebastian, who was initially presented by the petitioner. Furthermore, the Court stated that even a dismissed judge or a convicted criminal can testify, and their testimony must be assayed for credibility. The Court found no evidence of bias on the part of Jose Sebastian, and his testimony was supported by the records of the notarial registry showing the documents were received by the Notarial Registrar before Consuelo's death. The Court also found the explanation for the notarization on April 21, 1979, despite Consuelo's departure for the US, to be plausible, considering the desire for confidentiality and the alleged falling out with her regular lawyer. On the petitioner's liability for damages: The Court deleted the award of moral damages, exemplary damages, and attorney's fees in favor of Ariston Gomez, Jr. The Court found that the petitioner's institution of the case was carried out in good faith, motivated by a desire to protect the estate, and not by malice or a desire to cause injury. The Court noted that the petitioner's zealous efforts in gathering evidence, including subpoenaing the respondents themselves, did not constitute bad faith. Therefore, the petitioner could not be held liable for damages.
Main Doctrine
The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, holding that the petitioner failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that the Deeds of Donation were falsified or intercalated. The Court found the expert testimony of the respondent's witness more credible and gave weight to the circumstantial evidence presented by the respondents. The award of damages in favor of the respondent was deleted for lack of evidence of bad faith on the part of the petitioner.