POTENCIANO v. REYNOSO
G.R. No. 140707 April 22, 2003.
PANGANIBAN, J.
FACTS:
Ø Felipe
Pareja executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering a parcel of land and all
improvements in favor of his illegitimate son defendant-appellant Manuel Jayme
who later claimed that the said sale was made to cover the payments he had made
for the hospitalization expenses of his father, he having been constrained to
borrow money from several people for the purpose.
Ø Before
Felipe Pareja died, he executed a Last Will and Testament wherein he bequeathed
to herein appellees and appellant Manuel Jayme the lot in question while at the
same time recognizing them as his illegitimate children.
Ø 10
days after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale in their favor, spouses
Manuel and Natividad Jayme executed a Deed of Absolute Sale covering the
property in favor of defendant-appellant Norgene Potenciano who eventually
filed an ejectment case against plaintiff-appellee Dwight Reynoso.
Ø CA
affirmed the Decision of the RTC, that the signatures of Felipe B. Pareja on
the subject Deeds of Sale had been forged
ISSUE: W/N Felipe B. Pareja’s unprobated Last Will and
Testament as established filiation therefore Manuel Jayme has the capacity to
sue
HELD: Petition is DENIED.
YES.
·
The due
recognition of an illegitimate child in a record of birth, a will, a statement
before a court of record, or in any authentic writing is, in itself, a
consummated act of acknowledgment of the child, and no further court action is
required
Generally,
a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with
respect to its due execution. Thus, a document acknowledged before a notary
public has in its favor the presumption of regularity. However, this
presumption is not absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing
evidence to the contrary. To show that the signatures of Pareja were
forged on the questioned Deeds of Sale, petitioners presented Dwight Reynoso,
who was familiar with his handwriting; and Romeo Varona, a handwriting expert
of the National Bureau of Investigation. However, we are not unmindful of the
rule that a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of
handwriting experts; the judge is still required to conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature.
The CA conducted its own independent examination of the signatures and
concluded that the striking differences between the questioned signatures. Atty. Duterte’s testimony as to the latter
Deed of Sale was completely belied by the other witnesses, who testified that
Pareja had signed as a witness in the latter’s own residence and not in the
presence of the notary public. Petitioner Potenciano himself admitted that
Pareja, being already sickly at the time, had signed in the latter’s own house
and not in the presence of Notary Public Duterte. Since the signature of the alleged vendor was
a forgery, no rights were transferred from him to the alleged vendees. In turn,
the Jayme spouses could not have conveyed ownership of the property to
Petitioner Potenciano. It is a well-settled principle that no one can give what
one does not have.