Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83306:57295&catid=1586&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:52:27+00:00

Document:
KRYSTLE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, WILLIAM C. CU, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: BEATRIZ A. TORZAR, VIRGINIA A. TARAYA, ROSARIO A. MARCO, JESUS A. ALIBIN, AND JAY ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN, NAMELY: JAYNES ALIBIN, JAY ALIBIN, AND JESUS ALIBIN, JR., Respondents.
CARIDAD RODRIGUEZA, AS SUBSTITUTED BY RUFINO RODRIGUEZA, Petitioner, v. DOMINGO ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS HEIRS, NAMELY: BEATRIZ A. TORZAR, VIRGINIA A. TARAYA, ROSARIO A. MARCO, JESUS A. ALIBIN, AND JAY ALIBIN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS CHILDREN, NAMELY: JAYNES ALIBIN, JAY ALIBIN, AND JESUS ALIBIN, JR., Respondents.
Assailed in these consolidated petitions for review on certiorari1 are the Decision2 dated October 29, 2010 and the Resolution3 dated March 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92765 which affirmed the Decision4 dated November 18, 2008 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Legazpi City, Branch 7 in Civil Case No. 9033 for the annulment of the Deed of Sale5 dated August 23, 1962 executed in favor of petitioner Caridad Rodrigueza, and of Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. 40467, 40468 and 404696 issued by the Registry of Deeds of Legazpi City.
After due trial, the RTC of Legazpi City, Branch 7 rendered a Decision24 on November 18, 2008 (a) annulling the Deed of Sale dated August 23, 1962; (b) declaring respondents as the rightful owners of the one-half (½) undivided portion of the subject lot, and Krystle Realty as to the remaining one-half (½) portion; (c) ordering the cancellation of TCT Nos. 40467, 40468, and 40469 and, in lieu thereof, the issuance of new TCTs in the names of respondents and of Krystle Realty; (d) dismissing the counterclaims against respondents; and (e) awarding attorney’s fees and costs of suit in favor of respondents.
Aggrieved, Krystle Realty and Caridad elevated their cases on appeal before the CA, docketed as CA-G.R. CV No. 92765.
The pivotal issue in this case is whether or not the CA correctly affirmed the nullification of the Deed of Sale dated August 23, 1962 and the declaration of Krystle Realty as a purchaser in bad faith.
It is a settled rule that the Court is not a trier of facts and, hence, does not normally undertake the re-examination of the evidence presented by the contending parties during the trial of the case, considering that the factual findings of the CA are generally conclusive and binding on the Court,36 especially if they do not contradict those of the trial court, as in this case.
Contrary to the contention of petitioners, the CA has not overlooked any relevant fact which, if properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. That the parties herein agreed to submit the determination of the genuineness of Domingo’s signature to a handwriting expert of the NBI does not, by any stretch of the imagination, authorize the RTC to accept the findings of such expert hook, line, and sinker. The trial court is the most capable trier of facts and, as such, should not abdicate its judicial duty to decide.
In this case, both the RTC and the CA conducted independent examinations of the specimen signatures, which is authorized by law,40 and unanimously concluded that the questioned signature on the Deed of Sale dated August 23, 1962 is different from the standard signatures of Domingo as appearing on documents submitted in evidence by petitioner Caridad Rodrigueza. Absent any cogent reason to deviate from such finding of forgery, which is the basis for the annulment of the said deed, the same should be deemed conclusive and binding upon the Court.
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions are DENIED. Accordingly, the Decision dated October 29, 2010 and the Resolution dated March 11, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92765 are hereby AFFIRMED.
1Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 10-53; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 8-31.
2Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 59-100; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 74-115. Penned by Associate Justice Celia C. Librea-Leagogo, with Associate Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and Michael P. Elbinias, concurring.
3Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 102-104; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 129-131.
4Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 105-128; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 49-72.
5Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 158-159.
6 Id. at 172. Including the dorsal portion thereof.
12Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 106; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 50.
14Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 112; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 56.
15 Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 119; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 63.
16 See footnote in the CA Decision. Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 59; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 74.
17Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 174-177.
18 Rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 40-41.
19Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 178-181. Penned by Judge Gregorio A. Consulta.
21Rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 33.
22Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 190-201; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 36-47. Penned by Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr., with Associate Justices Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. and Teodoro P. Regino, concurring.
23Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 200; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 46.
24Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 105-128; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 49-72. Penned by Judge Jose G. Dy.
25Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 124-125; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 68-69.
26Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 126; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 70.
27Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 127; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 71.
28 Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 127; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 71.
29Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 59-100; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 74-115.
30Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 86; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 101.
31Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 89; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 104.
32Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 95; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 110.
33Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 95-96; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 110-111.
34Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 102-104; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 129-131.
35 See Resolution dated June 8, 2011; rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 202-203.
36 See Calilap-Asmeron v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 157330, November 23, 2011, 661 SCRA 54, 65.
37Belgica v. Belgica, 558 Phil. 67, 74-75 (2007).
38Tanenggee v. People, G.R. No. 179448, June 26, 2013, 699 SCRA 639, 658.
39 See Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 6, 2012, 665 SCRA 38, 47.
40 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Section 22. See also rollo (G.R. No. 196117), p. 86; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), p. 101.
41 See Pudadera v. Magallanes, G.R. No. 170073, October 18, 2010, 633 SCRA 332, 348.
42 Eagle Realty Corp. v. Republic, 579 Phil. 355, 372 (2008).
43 Rollo (G.R. No. 196117), pp. 188-189; rollo (G.R. No. 196129), pp. 33-34.
45Besana v. Mayor, G.R. No. 153837, July 21, 2010, 625 SCRA 203, 214.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.