Mendez v. Dabon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Jovina Dabon Vda. de Mendez filed a complaint against respondent-spouses Mineo and Trinidad Dabon, seeking the nullity of a deed of sale, transfer certificate of title, tax declaration, and other related documents, along with reconveyance of property and damages. Petitioner alleged she was the registered owner of the property and that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 15, 1982, was forged. She claimed she had only mortgaged the property to secure a loan and had never sold it. The respondent-spouses asserted that a valid sale had occurred, evidenced by the Deed of Absolute Sale signed by the petitioner and acknowledged before a notary public, and that they had been paying taxes on the property since the sale. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondent-spouses, finding that the petitioner's cause of action had prescribed and giving more credence to the testimony of the notary public over the document examiner's finding of forgery. Both parties appealed this decision. The Court of Appeals (CA) denied both appeals, agreeing with the RTC that there was no forgery and that the petitioner failed to overcome the presumption of authenticity of the notarized deed. The CA also found the respondent-spouses not entitled to damages and attorney's fees. The petitioner's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, assailing the CA's decision and resolution. She argued that the CA committed grave abuse of discretion by not passing upon her assigned errors, including the prescription of her action, the forgery of her signature despite expert evidence, the creation of an implied trust due to fraudulent purchase, and the CA's affirmation of the trial court's decision. The respondent-spouses argued that the petition should be dismissed as the petitioner availed of the wrong remedy, having failed to file a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 within the reglementary period. They also maintained the validity of the sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying petitioner's appeal and motion for reconsideration. Whether the CA erred in not passing upon petitioner's first assigned error that her action had not prescribed, considering her continuous possession and payment of taxes. Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's decision that the Deed of Absolute Sale was duly executed despite expert evidence of forgery. Whether the CA erred in not ruling that an implied trust was created arising from the alleged fraudulent purchase. Whether the CA erred in holding that petitioner did not rebut the notary public's testimony. Whether the CA erred in denying petitioner's appeal and affirming the RTC's decision in favor of the private respondents.
Ruling
The petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision dated May 8, 2006 and the Resolution dated September 12, 2006 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 76612 are AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the propriety of the remedy: The Court held that petitioner availed of the wrong remedy by filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65. The proper remedy from a judgment or final order of the CA is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45. A special civil action for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action based on grave abuse of discretion and is only available when there is no appeal or any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law. It cannot be used as a substitute for a lost appeal, especially when the loss was due to the petitioner's own negligence or error in choosing the remedy. In this case, an appeal under Rule 45 was available, and the petition was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for such an appeal. On the issue of prescription: While the CA's denial of the appeal was affirmed, the Court noted that the core issue of forgery is a question of fact, which is generally not a proper subject for a petition for certiorari. The RTC had already ruled on prescription, and the CA affirmed this. The petitioner's argument that her possession made the action imprescriptible was not given primary consideration due to the procedural defect and the nature of the issues raised. On the issue of forgery: The Court reiterated that forgery is not presumed and must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. While handwriting experts' testimonies are useful, they are not indispensable, and judges must exercise independent judgment. In this case, both the RTC and CA found no forgery, giving more credence to the testimony of the notary public who personally witnessed the petitioner sign the deed, over the testimony of the document examiner. The RTC found the expert's findings to be based on conjectures, and the CA noted a general resemblance between the signatures. The direct evidence of the notary public's testimony was deemed to outweigh the expert's testimony. On the creation of an implied trust: This issue was subsumed under the broader issue of forgery and the validity of the sale. Since the CA affirmed the RTC's finding that the deed was duly executed and not forged, the premise for the creation of an implied trust based on a fraudulent purchase was negated. On the rebuttal of the notary public's testimony: The Court found that the CA did not err in holding that the petitioner did not sufficiently rebut the notary public's testimony. The RTC and CA gave greater weight to the notary public's direct testimony, which is considered superior to the expert's testimony in this context, especially when the expert's findings were not considered conclusive. On the denial of the appeal and affirmation of the RTC decision: Ultimately, the petition was dismissed because the petitioner used the wrong remedy and filed it out of time. Even if considered as an appeal, the core issue of forgery is a question of fact that the CA did not gravely abuse its discretion in resolving against the petitioner, given the evidence presented and the weight accorded to the notary public's testimony.
Main Doctrine
A petition for certiorari under Rule 65 is an original and independent action based on grave abuse of discretion and will not lie if an appeal or other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy is available. It cannot be a substitute for a lost appeal, especially if the loss was due to negligence or error in the choice of remedy. Furthermore, the issue of forgery is a question of fact, which is generally not a proper subject for a petition for certiorari.