Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Inamarga Vs Alano
Inamarga Vs Alano
SUPREME COURT
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
DECISION
QUISUMBING, J.:
This petition for review on certiorari assails the Decision1 dated September
8, 2004 and Resolution2 dated January 4, 2006 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 64164. The appellate court had affirmed the Decision3 dated
November 26, 1998 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 1, Kalibo,
Aklan in Civil Case No. 4278.
In November 1990, after Tomas had passed away, respondents Celenia and
her children went to petitioner to redeem the property. Petitioner, however,
told them that she had mortgaged the property to the Rural Bank of Libacao.
Respondents verified the matter with the bank and discovered that OCT Nos.
P-761 and P-762 have been cancelled and in lieu thereof, Transfer
Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-9080 and T-9081 were issued in petitioner’s
1
name. Respondents learned that the TCTs in petitioner’s favor were issued
by virtue of a Deed of Sale purportedly executed by the Spouses Alano in
her favor.
On November 26, 1998, the RTC rendered its decision, the dispositive
portion of which reads as follows:
2. Declaring the nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. "B") dated
March 4, 1978 allegedly executed by Tomas Alano in favor of Mary Ann
Deheza;
2
5. Ordering defendant Mary Ann Deheza-Inamarga to pay plaintiffs
exemplary damages in the amount of P50,000.00 and attorney’s fees
in the amount of P10,000.00.
SO ORDERED.4
Petitioner elevated the case to the Court of Appeals but her appeal was
denied.5 The appellate court held that the signatures in the Deed of Sale
were forged and even if they were genuine, the agreement entered into by
the parties was one of equitable mortgage. It likewise upheld the trial court’s
award of damages, ruling that the transactions involved in the case were
repeatedly tainted with fraud.
I.
II.
III.
IV.
3
V.
Essentially, the issues for resolution are: (1) whether the Deed of Sale is a
forgery; (2) whether the transaction between petitioner and the Spouses
Alano is one of sale or equitable mortgage; (3) whether respondents’ action
is already barred by prescription, laches or estoppel; and (4) whether the
award of exemplary damages and attorney’s fees in favor of respondents is
legal and justifiable.
It is a hornbook doctrine that the findings of fact of trial courts are entitled
to great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed except for strong and
valid reasons. It is not a function of this Court to analyze and weigh
evidence by the parties all over again. Our jurisdiction is limited to reviewing
errors of law that might have been committed by the Court of Appeals.
Where the factual findings of the trial court are affirmed in toto by the Court
of Appeals as in this case, there is great reason for not disturbing such
findings and for regarding them as not reviewable by this Court.10
4
Moreover, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the presentation of a
handwriting expert is not necessary. Handwriting experts are usually helpful
in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure
involved in analyzing them. But resort to these experts is not mandatory or
indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwriting.11 The
findings of handwriting experts are not conclusive upon the courts. As this
Court has once observed, the authenticity of signatures "is not a highly
technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning, e.g., quantum
physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a
highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the
genuineness of a questioned signature is certainly much less compelling
upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a highly technical
issue. The signatures on a questioned document can be examined visually by
a judge who can and should exercise independent judgment on the issue of
authenticity of such signatures."12
With regard to the second issue, petitioner contends that it was the Spouses
Alano who caused the execution of the deed of sale in question and that the
document was signed by them in the presence of the notary public. She
likewise argues that after the sale, she took possession of the land; and she
adds that the consideration for the property was adequate because the
property was not productive.13 On the other hand, respondents aver that the
transaction between the Spouses Alano and petitioner is not one of sale but
one of equitable mortgage. Respondents stress that they continued to be in
possession of the property even after the alleged execution of the Deed of
Sale and they claim that the P7,000 consideration is grossly inadequate for
the market value of the property. Respondents further stated that they paid
P500 interest annually for the loan.14
In our considered view, the appellate court did not err in sustaining the
decision of the trial court holding that the transaction between the parties is
an equitable mortgage.
Articles 1602 and 1604 of the Civil Code of the Philippines state:
5
(1) When the price of the sale with right to repurchase is unusually
inadequate;
(4) When the purchaser retains for himself a part of the purchase
price;
(5) When the vendor binds himself to pay the taxes on the thing sold;
(6) In any case where it may be fairly inferred that the real intention
of the parties is that the transaction shall secure the payment of a
debt or the performance of any other obligation.
ART. 1604. The provisions of Article 1602 shall also apply to a contract
purporting to be an absolute sale.
In the instant case, the RTC, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, correctly
found that more than one of the circumstances enumerated in Article 1602
are present, to wit: the inadequacy of the selling price of the properties in
relation to its true value; the vendors (Spouses Alano) remained in
possession as lessee or otherwise; respondents paid the real property taxes;
and the spouses secured the payment of the principal debt owed to
petitioner with said properties.16 On this score, we are in agreement that the
parties intended an equitable mortgage and not a contract of sale.
On the third issue, petitioner claims that the complaint was barred by
extinctive prescription as it was filed only on January 24, 1991, or almost 13
years from March 7, 1978 when the TCTs were issued in favor of petitioner.
Petitioner argues that the prescriptive period for reconveyance of land based
on implied or constructive trust is 10 years.17 Respondents counter that
since the deed of sale and the certificates of title in the name of petitioner
are all null and void, prescription, laches or estoppel has not set in.18
Again, we find for the respondents. Where there is no consent given by one
party in a purported contract, such contract was not perfected; therefore,
6
there is no contract to speak of. The deed of sale relied upon by petitioner is
deemed a void contract. This being so, the action based on said deed of sale
shall not prescribe in accordance with Article 141019 of the Civil Code.
We do not find any cogent reason to disturb the findings of the RTC on this
point as affirmed by the Court of Appeals with respect to the award of
damages and attorney’s fees. As correctly held by the RTC, the act of
petitioner of inducing her two trusting old relatives to sign blank pieces of
paper purporting to be a deed of sale so that the certificates of title of their
properties could be transferred in her name is a fraudulent act. Exemplary
damages were rightfully imposed in order to deter persons similarly disposed
from committing such acts of fraud. Consequently, with the grant of
exemplary damages, attorney’s fees should likewise be awarded.22
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
7
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the Division
Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the
above Decision were reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
Footnotes
4 Id. at 36-37.
5 Id. at 46.
6 Id. at 16.
7 Id. at 143-144.
8
8Cogtong v. Kyoritsu International, Inc., G.R. No. 160729, July 27,
2007, 528 SCRA 330, 333.
9Siasat v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129382, January 23, 2002, 374
SCRA 326, 330-331.
13 Rollo, p. 17.
16 Rollo, p. 45.
17 Id. at 17-18.
18 Id. at 71.
20 Rollo, p. 18.
xxxx