G.R. No. 179323 - VICENTE MANZANO, JR., VS. MARCELINO GARCIA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Civil Case No. 94-097, is hereby dismissed and declaring the Deed of Pacto de Retro Sale legal and valid, and granting the prayer of petitioner in Civil Case No. 93-610 to consolidate ownership of the land in favor of Vicente Manzano, Jr. representing the heirs of Constancio Manzano, namely: Felix, Andrea, Maxima, Ramon and Marciana, all surnamed Manzano, for all legal purposes. No costs. [13] 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). The court noted the admission of Atty. Mediante that he notarizes around 25 to 30 documents per month and could not describe or remember all the persons appearing before him for notarization. The court was likewise intrigued by the testimony of Atty. Mediante that he had seen the alleged impostor Marcelino Garcia sitting at the Cagayan de Oro Divisoria for two weeks. As regards Babano, the trial court found it unnatural for an impersonator to show her, a stranger, documents such as the title to the subject property. Also, the trial court found the low price paid for the property insignificant considering that the vendor had the right to repurchase the property within three months from the sale. Garcia sought recourse with the Court of Appeals. The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 55408 and was raffled to the Court of Appeals twenty-third division in Cagayan de Oro City. On September 26, 2006, the appellate court rendered the assailed decision reversing that of the trial court. The dispositive portion of the decision read: FOR THE REASONS STATED , We REVERSE and SET ASIDE the assailed decision of the Regional Trial Court. In its place, judgment is hereby rendered declaring the pacto de retro sale executed on May 26, 1992, VOID AB INITIO and dismissing Civil Case No. 93-610. Furthermore, Appellee Vicente Manzano, Jr., is ordered to RETURN the owners duplicate copy of TCT No. T-25464 to Appellant Marcelino D. Garcia. Entry No. 164181 annotated at the back of the said title is hereby ordered cancelled. [14] 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 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 [15] of the Rules of Court. The Court of Appeals added that on the basis of Atty. Mediantes testimony, the presumption of regularity in the execution