Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 77 views

    Bautista Vs CA - Recit Ready

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    The dispute involved a parcel of land belonging to Cesar Morelos that he sold to his niece, Laura Bautista. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate child, contested the sale. Expert witnesses testified that Cesar's signature and fingerprint on the deed did not match other records. However, the witness to the deed testified she saw Cesar and Laura sign it. The RTC upheld the deed's validity, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was not enough to invalidate a notarized deed, given the witness's testimony confirming its authenticity. Notarized deeds have a presumption of validity that requires clear evidence to overcome, which was not presented in this

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Bautista Vs CA - Recit Ready

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    77 views2 pages
    The dispute involved a parcel of land belonging to Cesar Morelos that he sold to his niece, Laura Bautista. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate child, contested the sale. Expert witnesses testified that Cesar's signature and fingerprint on the deed did not match other records. However, the witness to the deed testified she saw Cesar and Laura sign it. The RTC upheld the deed's validity, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was not enough to invalidate a notarized deed, given the witness's testimony confirming its authenticity. Notarized deeds have a presumption of validity that requires clear evidence to overcome, which was not presented in this

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    Bautista vs CA - recit ready

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The dispute involved a parcel of land belonging to Cesar Morelos that he sold to his niece, Laura Bautista. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate child, contested the sale. Expert witnesses testified that Cesar's signature and fingerprint on the deed did not match other records. However, the witness to the deed testified she saw Cesar and Laura sign it. The RTC upheld the deed's validity, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was not enough to invalidate a notarized deed, given the witness's testimony confirming its authenticity. Notarized deeds have a presumption of validity that requires clear evidence to overcome, which was not presented in this

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    77 views2 pages

    Bautista Vs CA - Recit Ready

    Uploaded by

    Ral Caldi
    The dispute involved a parcel of land belonging to Cesar Morelos that he sold to his niece, Laura Bautista. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate child, contested the sale. Expert witnesses testified that Cesar's signature and fingerprint on the deed did not match other records. However, the witness to the deed testified she saw Cesar and Laura sign it. The RTC upheld the deed's validity, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court held that the expert testimony was not enough to invalidate a notarized deed, given the witness's testimony confirming its authenticity. Notarized deeds have a presumption of validity that requires clear evidence to overcome, which was not presented in this

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    RECIT-READY

    Laura and Eriberto Bautista VS. Court of Appeals and Fernando


    Morelos

    The dispute involved a parcel of land in Sampaloc, Manila belonging to Cesar Morelos which he
    sold to his niece, petitioner Laura Bautista. Now private respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming
    to be an illegitimate child of Cesar, filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and title
    before RTC-Manila.
    Private respondent presented testimonies of expert witnesses who claimed that the signature of
    Cesar Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint appearing on his Residence
    Certificate were not his:
    1. Chief Examiner of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service, that the signature of
    decedent on the questioned instrument, when compared to other documents bearing the
    authentic signature of Cesar Morelos, did not match and appeared to have been authored by a
    different person.
    2. Chief of the Fingerprint Division of the PC-INP, testified that the thumbmark of Cesar
    Morelos appearing on the residence certificate indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale,
    when compared to those affixed on previous residence certificates issued to the decedent,
    did not match and appears to be the thumbmark of another person.
    On the other hand, the petitioners argued for the validity of the sale saying that the witness to
    the Deed of Sale testified that she saw Cesar Morelos and petitioner Laura Bautista sign the
    same.
    RTC-Manila declared the Deed of Sale to be valid. But the Court of Appeals reversed declaring
    it to be void, and ordered for the cancellation of the TCT.
    ISSUE: Whether the expert testimonies are conclusive to be a strong basis to nullify a duly
    executed and notarized Deed of Absolute Sale
    HELD: NO. Consequently, the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid.
    Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness of handwriting may be
    proved in the following manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
    person because he has seen the person write; or he has seen writing purporting to be his upon
    which the witness has acted or been charged; (2) 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.
    It is well-settled that a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of
    authenticity and due execution as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public
    instrument. A notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner
    therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To overturn this legal
    presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant to
    establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract.
    As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
    convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
    Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting
    experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent
    judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the
    mere testimony of the handwriting expert.
    Furthermore, Rule 132, Section 22 (1) provides that the genuineness of handwriting may be
    proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has
    seen the person write.
    In this case, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and
    fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was physically
    present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the testimony of
    an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. Carmelita
    Marcelino, the witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale, confirmed the genuineness, authenticity
    and due execution thereof.
    The authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be upheld.

    You might also like