Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
$->upreme
~ourt
;f[Nanila
FIRST DIVISION
: .1 ...
~=-~ ,. <,~;i.~
. .J ... i . J
li'Cr ~1r:~:. 1i - .
1:':\
i:~~! ,.;:,~,.;,
. I ,,.....c,..... ...J.._...,..
~>,~
--\!Ir-..,-.. _.._.,,,,
'\ \ !
i . _ _.
.; ..
.,
'.
Ji)
~
~
:.'..::~=---~:.I:?J__ .:_~:
DAMASO T. AMBRAY and
CEFERINO T. AMBRAY, JR.,*
Petitioners,
- versus -
SYLVIA
A.
TSOUROUS,
CARMENCITA
AMBRAYLAUREL, HEDY AMBRAYAZORES, VIVIEN AMBRAYYATCO, NANCY AMBRAYromulgated:
ESCUDERO,
MARIS TELA
AMBRAY-ILAGAN,
JUL D 5 2016
ELIZABETH
AMBRAYSORIANO, MA. LUISA FE
AMBRAY-ARCILLA,
and
CRISTINA AMBRAY-LABIT,
Respondents.
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari 1 are the Decision 2
dated April 25, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated September 24, 2013 rendered
by the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95606, affirming the
Decision4 dated June 11, 2010 of the Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City,
Branch 32 (RTC) in Civil Case No. SP-5831(01).
Estela T. Ambray had already died on August 15, 2002. See rollo p. 9.
On official leave.
Per Special Order No. 2358 dated June 28, 2016.
Rollo, pp. 7-29.
Id. at 32-40. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Ramon R.
Garcia and Danton Q. Bueser concurring.
Id. at 42-43. Penned by Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino with Associate Justices Ramon R.
Garcia and Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
4
Id. at 44-67. Penned by Judge Agripino G. Morga.
**
Decision
The Facts
9
10
11
12
13
Decision
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Id. at 79-80.
Id. at 79.
Id. at 34-35.
Id. at 81-86. Penned by Judge Iluminado C. Monzon.
Records, Vol. I, pp. 3-10.
Id. at 47-53.
Id. at 99-102. Penned by Judge Zorayda Herradura-Salcedo.
See Notice of Appeal dated June 19, 2002; id. at 103.
Id. at 105-117. Penned by Associate Justice Mariflor P. Punzalan Castillo with Associate Justices Elvi
John S. Asuncion and Mariano C. Del Castillo (now a member of this Court).
Id. at 123-128.
See Order dated January 30, 2007; id. at 145-146.
Decision
were aware of the conveyance of Lot 2-C to them through the Deed of Sale.
They also claimed that respondents' action has prescribed, and maintained
that it was barred by prior judgment and res judicata. 25
Subsequently, citing an Affidavit26 dated February 18, 2008 executed
by Ma. Fe Luisa, the rest of the respondents moved27 that she be dropped as
a plaintiff, which the RTC granted. 28 Thereafter, she was ordered 29
imp leaded as a party-defendant in respondents' supplemental complaint.
Later, she adopted 30 petitioners' answer with counterclaim in response
thereto.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Id. at 124.
Id. at 184-185.
Id. at 181-186.
See Order dated April 28, 2008; id. at 201-203.
Id. at 263-265.
Id. at 287.
Rollo, pp. 44-67.
Decision
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
Id. at 66.
Id. at 61.
Id. at 61-62.
Id. at 62.
Id. at 63-64.
CA rollo, pp. 82-106 and 136-152.
Id. at 139.
Id. at 87.
Decision
The CA Ruling
The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
erred in affirming the RTC's nullification of the Deed of Sale dated January
16, 1978 and TCT No. T-41382 covering Lot 2-C in the name of petitioners.
The Court's Ruling
42
43
44
45
46
Decision
48
49
50
New City Builders, Inc. v. NLRC, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213 (2005), citing Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd. v. CA, G.R. No. 126850, April 28, 2004, 428 SCRA 79, 86.
Maersk-Filipinas Crewing Inc., v. Avestruz, supra note 46, at 172.
Gepulle-Garbo v. Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015, 746 SCRA 189, 198-199.
Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write,
or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also
be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as
genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction
of the judge.
Decision
51
52
53
54
55
Bautista v. CA, 479 Phil. 787, 792-793 (2004), citing Vda. de Bernardo v. Restauro, 452 Phil. 745,
751-752 (2003).
Folder of Exhibits, pp. 9-10.
See Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) dated September I 0, 1998; rollo, pp. 107-108.
Id. at 89-91.
Id. at 19-21.
Decision
Case law holds that for the said rule to apply, the following requisites
must be satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) his
testimony or deposition was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or
administrative, between the same parties or those representing the same
interests; (c) the former case involved the same subject as that in the present
case, although on different causes of action; (d) the issue testified to by the
witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in the present case and
( e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the witness in the
former case. 56 The reasons for the admissibility of testimony taken at a
former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the testimony and its
trustworthiness. However, before the former testimony can be introduced in
evidence, the proponent must first lay the proper predicate therefor, i.e., the
party must establish the basis for the admission of testimony in the realm of
. "bl e ev1"dence. 57
admiss1
Records show that Estela died during the pendency of these
proceedings before the RTC or on August 15, 2002. Her death transpired
before the presentation of the parties' evidence could ensue. However, she
was able to testify on direct and cross-examination in the falsification case
and affirmed that the alleged forged signatures appearing on the Deed of
Sale were, indeed, hers and her deceased husband, Ceferino, Sr.'s. The
parties in the falsification case involved respondents and petitioners herein,
and the subject matter therein and in this case are one and the same, i.e., the
genuineness and authenticity of the signatures of Ceferino, Sr. and Estela.
Clearly, the former testimony of Estela in the falsification case, being
admissible in evidence in these proceedings, deserves significant
consideration. She gave positive testimony that it was Ceferino, Sr. himself
who signed the Deed of Sale that conveyed Lot 2-C to petitioners. She
likewise verified her signature thereon. By virtue of these declarations, she
confirmed the genuineness and authenticity of the questioned signatures.
Thus, it follows that the Deed of Sale itself is valid and duly executed,
contrary to the finding of the R TC, as affirmed by the CA, that it was of
spurious nature.
56
57
Decision
10
59
60
Bautista v. CA, supra note 51. See also Bernardo v. Ramos, 433 Phil. 8 (2002); and Manzano v. Perez,
Sr., 414 Phil. 728 (2001).
TSN, August 3, 2009, pp. 14-15.
Id. at 19-21.
Decision
11
Decision. Accordingly, TCT No. T-41382 covering Lot 2-C in the name of
petitioners remain valid.
On official leave
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice
~~k~
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.
~~~&dZ;
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
Acting Chairperson, First Division
Decision
12
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, and the
Division Acting Chairperson's Attestation, I certify 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.
~/1
Acting Chief Justice