462 Phil. 723
AZCUNA, J.:
There is no dispute regarding the fact that, sometime in 1987, Josefina Jaranilla went to live with her son, Ernesto Jaranilla, a doctor based in the United States of America. On June 9, 1992, however, the above-described parcel of land was sold for a price of P16,000 in favor of Luis A. Bersales, Jr. The deed of sale was executed in the name of Josefina Jaranilla by one Lolita F. Estacio who claimed to have been so authorized by a Special Power of Attorney dated July 26, 199[1]. The day following the conveyance, Josefina Jaranilla's title was cancelled and, in lieu thereof, Transfer Certificate Title of Title No. T-9,455 of the Pagadian City registry was issued in favor of Luis A. Bersales, Jr.The trial court, finding the special powers of attorney used by petitioner Lolita as "highly questionable, spurious and self-evidently fabricated," nullified the original sale to Atty. Bersales. It however found that good faith had intervened in the subsequent transaction; hence, it upheld Atty. Almonte's title to the property.
On June 16, 1992, Luis A. Bersales, Jr. sold the subject parcel of land for P16,000 in favor of Jorge T. Almonte, in whose name Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-9,767 was, consequently, issued by the Register of Deeds of Pagadian City. Upon the death of his wife, Jorge T. Almonte caused the issuance of a new title over the land - Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11,732 - in his name and those of his children...
Discovering the unauthorized conveyance of her parcel of land upon her return to the Philippines in 1992, Josefina Jaranilla sent a letter to the Registrar of Deeds of Zamboanga on March 24, 1993, the contents of which are reproduced, to wit:Meanwhile, employing another Special Power of Attorney dated January 4, 1993, Lolita F. Estacio ratified the sale of the land in favor of Luis A. Bersales, Jr. with the execution of another Deed of Sale dated April 19, 1993.March 24, 1993
Cebu City
ATTY. RICARDO DIOSO JR.
Registrar of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur
Capitol Building
Pagadian City
Zamboanga del Sur
SIR:
My client, MS. JOSEFINA JARANILLA, who is the registered owner of Lot No. 202, Pls-119 situated in the barrio Bulatoc Pagadian City, and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-3,706 duly issued by your office dated March 20, 1968, hereby intend[s] to inform your office that she [has] not authorized anybody to negotiate or transact the above-stated parcel of land and that the owner's duplicate original of the said land is in her possession. If ever there will be any negotiation or transaction [over] the said land, my said client, Ms. Josefina Jaranilla, will enter into the same personally.
This letter is made in order to avoid trouble and confusion that may arise in the future as my client was informed that somebody is trying to negotiate and transact the aforestated land without my client's knowledge, authority and consent.
Thank you very much for your kind attention on this matter.Yours truly,
(SGD.)
Atty. Manuel F. Ong
Counsel for Ms. Josefina JaranillaDone at my instance:
(SGD.)
Ms. Josefina Jaranilla
Josefina Jaranilla died on December 19, 1994, and her only son and heir, Ernesto Jaranilla, represented by his duly appointed Attorney-in-Fact, Rosalia Frias Muñoz, filed a complaint for declaration of nullity and/or annulment of transfer certificates of titles, deeds and conveyances, recovery of possession, and damages.... Contending that the Special Power of Attorney utilized by Lolita F. Estacio was a falsified document, plaintiff alleged, among other matters, that the subsequent transfers of the land in litigation were, for said reason alone, already null and void; and that the inadequate consideration, as well as the inordinate haste at which the land was transferred, indicates that the defendants conspired with one another in fraudulently depriving him and his predecessors-in-interest of the ownership thereof....
In the answers they separately filed after service of summons upon them, defendants Luis A. Bersales, Jr. and Jorge T. Almonte, claimed to be innocent purchasers for value and in good faith. Contending that plaintiff had no cause of action against them, they both prayed for the dismissal of the complaint and the grant of their counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, litigation expenses and the costs of the suit.
Joined by her husband, Leon Estacio, Jr., who was impleaded in the suit as a nominal defendant, Lolita F. Estacio, on the other hand, specifically denied the material allegations of the complaint in an Answer dated June 28, 1996. As affirmative defenses, she claimed that, having merely received the assailed powers of attorney from the decedent's sister, Remedios Jaranilla, she had no hand in the preparation of the documents, much less in the alleged forgery of the signatures therein; that she relied on the assurance of Remedios Jaranilla regarding the authenticity of the said documents, and transferred the subject land in favor of defendant Luis A. Bersales, Jr. in good faith... Defendants thereupon prayed for the dismissal of the complainant and sought indemnity for moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, as well as litigation and other expenses.
At the pre-trial conference, the parties admitted the pieces of documentary evidence attached to their pleadings and agreed to dispense with the further presentation of evidence and to submit the case on the merits.[4]
WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is MODIFIED, as follows:Dissatisfied with the Court of Appeals' ruling, petitioner-spouses Leon and Lolita Estacio now come before this Court raising two issues for our review. First, they question the assailed Decision and Resolution for having been decided contrary to law on the main contention that respondent miserably failed to present clear and convincing evidence to support the finding of forgery. Second, they assert that respondent's failure to prove the claim of forgery renders the order for them to pay damages devoid of legal basis.[6]
- The Special Power of Attorney dated July 26, 1991, allegedly executed by Josefina Jaranilla appointing defendant Lolita Frias Estacio as her Attorney-in-Fact is declared NULL and VOID;
- The sale of the subject property between Josefina Jaranilla represented by defendant Lolita F. Estacio as the supposed Attorney-in-Fact of the former, and Atty. Luis Bersales, Jr., and the sale of the same property in litigation between Atty. Luis Bersales, Jr., as vendor and Atty. Jorge T. Almonte as vendee, are declared NULL and VOID, together with all the documents and transfer certificates of title issued subsequent thereto;
- TCT No. T-9,455 covering the subject property in the name of Atty. Luis Bersales, Jr.; TCT No. T-767 issued in the name of Atty. Jorge T. Almonte, as well as TCT No. T-11,732 issued in the name of Atty. Jorge T. Almonte, Jason P. Almonte, Oliver George P. Almonte, Jeffrey P. Almonte and Lilibeth P. Almonte, over the same lot in litigation, are hereby ANNULLED;
- TCT No. T-3,706 of the Zamboanga del Sur Register of Deeds in the name of Josefina Jaranilla is ordered REINSTATED.
- Defendant-appellant Lolita Frias Estacio is ordered to indemnify plaintiff Dr. Ernesto Jaranilla the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000) as moral, nominal and temperate damages; and
- Defendant-appellant Lolita F. Estacio, defendants-appellees Luis Bersales, Jr. and Jorge T. Almonte, are directed to pay the costs of the suit.[5]
It can be gleaned from the aforecited decision of the Court of Appeals that in arriving at its conclusion of forgery, the trial court did not solely rely on the obvious discrepancy of the signatures as borne by the documentary evidence. It also considered the surrounding circumstances prevailing at the time of the execution of the assailed documents which reinforced the finding that the Special Powers of Attorney were indeed fraudulently executed.xxx xxx xxx
The manifest disparity between the genuine signature of Josefina Jaranilla and those represented to be hers in the Special Powers of Attorney dated July 26, 1991 and Janury 4, 1993 clearly indicates that the latter signatures were, indeed, forged. Mere variance of the signatures cannot, admittedly, be considered as exclusive proof that the same were forged in much the same way that forgery cannot be presumed. As correctly observed by the trial court, however, defendant-appellant Lolita Estacio's bare claim of good faith is belied by her use of a second special Power of Attorney in the execution of a second deed of sale in favor of defendant-appellee Luis Bersales after Josefina Jaranilla warned the Registrar of Deeds of Zamboanga del Sur of unauthorized transactions involving her property.
[A]ppellant Estacio spouses call the attention of the [c]ourt to the supposed fact, among others, that the plaintiff-appellee had failed to prove Josefina Jaranilla's continuous stay in the U.S.A. after her departure from the Philippines in 1992; and, that as public documents, the Special Powers of Attorney executed in her (Lolita Estacio's) favor, as well as the Deeds of Sale she executed in favor of defendant-appellee Luis Bersales, Jr., deserve full faith and credence. The records, however, shows that defendant-appellants have admitted the following allegations set forth in paragraph 4 of the complaint, viz:Far more important than their admission of Josefina Jaranilla's whereabouts during the aforesaid period of time, defendant-appellants have thereby effectively put in dubious light the authenticity of the July 26, 1991 Special Power of Attorney which, on its face, designate Cebu City as its place of execution and acknowledgement. Having likewise admitted that the consideration stated in the deed of sale dated June 9, 1992 was false, appellant spouses are, likewise, hardly in a position to invoke the presumption of authenticity and regularity accorded to public documents. Moreover, if it were true that defendant-appellant Lolita Estacio believed the deed of sale dated June 9, 1992 to be authentic and regular, she would not have attempted to ratify the same with the subsequent execution of the deed of sale dated April 19, 1993. [12]xxx xxx xxx
- That sometime in the year 1987, deceased Josefina Jaranilla while still living, went to the United States to join her son, who has been a permanent resident thereat incidental to the latter's exercise of his medical profession and stayed thereat until her return to the Philippines in the latter part of the year 1992.
xxx xxx xxx
In the absence of evidence that no such statement was made or that the same was made through palpable mistake, the foregoing admission is conclusive and does not require proof.[14]
- That defendants ADMIT the allegation of paragraph 4 of the complaint.[13]
Unquestionably, the second authorization which sought to "confirm and ratify" all acts of petitioner Lolita, is irreconcileable with the deceased's letter to the Register of Deeds, advising the latter of unauthorized transactions being entered into by her own relatives. Apart from the inexplicable need for a second authorization, the timing of its issuance shortly after the deceased sent a warning to the registrar, draws more suspicion and lends credence to respondent's claim that the transactions under the aforesaid authorizations were indeed anomalous.xxx xxx xxx
Apart from the dubious authenticity of her signature thereon, the efficacy of the said Special Power of Attorney and the Deed of Sale dated April 19, 1993 as acts ratificatory of the initial June 9, 1992 sale of the subject realty was effectively refuted by the letter dated March 24, 1993 which Josefina Jaranilla caused to be sent to the Registrar of Deeds of Zamboanga.[15]