Dizon v. Matti
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a Complaint for Specific Performance filed by respondent Jose Luis K. Matti, Jr. (Matti, Jr.) against petitioner Carmelita V. Dizon (Dizon). Matti, Jr. alleged that in February 2000, he was offered a townhouse for sale by Dizon, through a real estate agent. After inspecting the property and verifying the original documents, including the Certificate of Title, Matti, Jr. agreed to purchase the property. A Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, and Matti, Jr. paid the full purchase price. However, upon attempting to update the real estate taxes, Matti, Jr. discovered that the documents in his possession, including the Certificate of Title, were allegedly falsified. He was subsequently informed by the Register of Deeds that the title was indeed fake. Matti, Jr. then caused an annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on the title to protect his rights. Despite demands, Dizon allegedly failed to deliver the authentic Owner's Duplicate Copy of the title. Matti, Jr. sought to have the title delivered or cancelled and reissued in his name, and to gain physical possession of the property. Dizon, in her defense, claimed she did not encumber or transfer ownership of the property, did not execute the Deed of Absolute Sale, and did not know Matti, Jr. or the real estate agents involved. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Branch 202, dismissed Matti, Jr.'s complaint for lack of merit. The RTC found that Dizon had sufficiently proven she was not in the Philippines in February 2000, having been working in London, which made it impossible for her to have signed the Deed of Absolute Sale. Consequently, the RTC declared the Deed of Absolute Sale invalid due to lack of consent and ordered it nullified. Matti, Jr. filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was denied by the RTC. Aggrieved, Matti, Jr. appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the RTC's decision, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale valid and ordering Dizon to deliver the original Owner's Duplicate Copy of the title and surrender physical possession of the property. The CA reasoned that a notarized document enjoys a presumption of regularity, and Dizon's evidence was insufficient to overcome this presumption. Dizon's subsequent Motion for Reconsideration and Supplemental Motion for Reconsideration were denied by the CA. The Petition: Petitioner Carmelita V. Dizon filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. Dizon argued that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's decision and upholding the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale. She contended that the CA's reliance on the presumption of regularity of notarized documents was misplaced, given the clear and convincing evidence of forgery. Dizon presented evidence, including travel records from the Bureau of Immigration and employment records from her UK employer, to prove her absence from the Philippines during the purported execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale. She also highlighted that the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale did not exist in the notarial records and that her signature on the deed was demonstrably dissimilar to her genuine signatures. Furthermore, Dizon pointed out the lack of corroborating witnesses and the inconsistencies in Matti, Jr.'s own testimony. The central issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the CA correctly upheld the sale based on the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the sale based on the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, considering the evidence presented. Whether petitioner Dizon's absence from the Philippines during the purported execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale constitutes sufficient evidence to prove forgery, and whether the court's reliance on expert testimony was necessary. Whether the CA erred in dismissing Dizon's Motion for Reconsideration due to an unsigned pleading, and the implications of Matti, Jr.'s evidence and burden of proof.
Ruling
The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the decision of the Regional Trial Court. The Court declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the presumption of regularity of notarized documents: The Court held that while a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity, this presumption is not absolute and can be overcome by clear, strong, and convincing evidence. Citing Suntay v. Court of Appeals, Sps. Tan v. Mandap, and Mayor v. Belen, the Court emphasized that the intention of the parties is paramount and that notarization does not validate a document never intended to have legal effect. The CA's reliance solely on the notarization, despite strong evidence to the contrary, was deemed erroneous. The Court found that highly questionable circumstances, particularly the physical impossibility of Dizon's presence in the Philippines, shattered the presumption of regularity. On whether Dizon's absence from the Philippines constitutes sufficient evidence of forgery: The Court affirmed the RTC's finding that Dizon sufficiently proved her absence from the Philippines for the entire month of February 2000. This was corroborated by the testimony of a Bureau of Immigration agent, official travel records showing her departure in October 1999 and return in November 2000, her passport stamps, and a certification of employment from her UK employer. The Court found this evidence conclusive in establishing that Dizon could not have signed the Deed of Absolute Sale. The CA's reasoning that the evidence was not "conclusive as it does not categorically prove her physical whereabouts" was deemed erroneous, as any clear proof of absence from the country during the transaction was sufficient to negate the sale. The Court reiterated that resort to document examiners is not mandatory and that a judge can exercise independent judgment on the authenticity of signatures. The RTC conducted such an independent examination and concluded forgery based on physical impossibility. Furthermore, the Court itself conducted an analytical study and found the signature of Dizon in the Deed of Absolute Sale patently dissimilar to her genuine signatures in other documents, indicating divergent handwriting styles, which did not require an expert to discern. On the CA's reliance on the failure to present expert witnesses and the procedural issues regarding the Petition: The Court found merit in Dizon's arguments regarding the procedural defects raised by Matti, Jr. The Court allowed the belated submission of a Special Power of Attorney to cure the defect in the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, citing substantial compliance and the principle of liberal construction of rules to promote substantial justice. Similarly, the Court allowed the unsigned Motion for Reconsideration, deeming the omission as mere inadvertence, not intended for delay, and noting that the rules should be applied with reason and liberality. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof rested on Matti, Jr., as the plaintiff. His lone, self-serving testimony was uncorroborated and inconsistent. He failed to present crucial witnesses like the real estate agents, his wife, or the notary public. His inability to recall Dizon's physical appearance and the conflicting accounts of his first meeting with her cast serious doubt on his credibility and the veracity of his claims. The Court found his testimony unrealistic and contrary to ordinary human experience.
Main Doctrine
The presumption of regularity of a notarized document can be overcome by clear, strong, and convincing evidence, especially when physical impossibility of the transaction is established. The failure to present expert witnesses on forgery does not preclude a finding of forgery if other evidence, such as proof of absence from the country during the transaction, convincingly demonstrates its spurious nature. The burden of proof rests on the party making allegations, and uncorroborated, self-serving testimony, especially when inconsistent, is insufficient to establish a claim.