Gomez Digest

Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, G.R.
No. 156284, February 6, 2007

FACTS:
On February 15, 1980, [petitioner] instituted these cases, to wit: (1)

Civil Case No. 36089, entitled: Augusto Gomez, as Special
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Consuelo Gomez, Plaintiff,
versus Maria Rita Gomez-Samson, Marcial Samson, Jesus B. Gomez,
and the Registers of Deeds of Pasig and Marikina, Rizal, Defendants;
and (2) Civil Case No. 36090, entitled: Augusto Gomez, as Special
Administrator of the Intestate Estate of Consuelo Gomez, Plaintiff,
versus Ariston Gomez, Sr., and Ariston B. Gomez, Jr., Defendants, both
in the Regional Trial Court, Pasig City.
CONSUELO, ARISTON, SR. and Angel, all surnamed Gomez, were sister
and brothers, respectively. MARIA-RITA Gomez-Samson, JESUS Gomez
and ARISTON Gomez, JR. are the children of ARISTON, SR. while
AUGUSTO Gomez is the child of Angel.
In Civil Case No. 36089, plaintiff AUGUSTO alleged in his complaint

that CONSUELO, who died on November 6, 1979, was the owner of
three real properties with TCT NO.’s 340233, 353818, 268396; that
after the death of Consuelo, defendants Rita and Jesus fraudulently
prepared and/or caused to be prepared a Deed of Donation Intervivos;
that in the said document, Consuelo donated the above described
properties to defendants Rita and Jesus; that the said defendants
forged or caused to be forged the signature of the donor, Consuelo;
that the notarial acknowledgement on the said document was
antedated to April 21, 1979; that on the basis of the said document
defendants sought the cancellation of the certificates of title in the
name of Consuelo and the issuance of new ones in the names of
defendants Rita and Jesus.
On the basis of the foregoing, plaintiff prayed that the Deed of

Donation Intervivos be declared false, null and void ab initio, and/or
be nullified; that TCT Nos. 340233, 353818, and 268396 be reinstated
or be replaced by titles in the name of the Intestate Estate of Consuelo
Gomez; and, that defendants be ordered to pay damages, by way of
attorneys fees and expenses of litigation plus costs.
Advertisement
On April 24, 1980, private defendants, and nominal defendants

Registers of Deeds of Pasig and Marikina, Rizal, filed their common
answer, denying the material allegations in the complaint and
asserting that a copy of the deed of donation was submitted to the
Notarial Section of the CFI of Quezon City as early as July 2, 1979; and
that the said document is valid and not a forgery or otherwise subject
to similar infirmity.
In Civil Case No. 36090, the same plaintiff alleged in his complaint that
Consuelo was also the sole and absolute owner of the following
properties: seventy-five (75) common shares of stock of V-Tri Realty,
Inc., eleven thousand eight hundred fifty three (11,853) common
shares of stock of First Philippine Holdings Corporation, Jewelries and
collectors items, a four-door sedan 1978 Mercedes Benz, a four-door
sedan 1979 Toyota Corona, and wo hundred thousand pesos
(P200,000.00) including accrued interests on money market placement
with the BA Finance Corporation; that after the death of Consuelo,
defendants fraudulently prepared and/or caused to be prepared a Deed
of Donation Intervivos; that in the said document Consuelo donated
the above described properties to defendants Ariston, Sr. and Ariston,
Jr.; and that the said defendants forged or caused to be forged the
signature of the donor, Consuelo.
On the basis of the foregoing, the plaintiff prayed that the Deed of
Donation Intervivos be declared false, null and void ab initio, and/or
be nullified; that defendant Ariston, Sr., be ordered to deliver the stock
certificates, jewelries, collectors items, and vehicles in his possession
plus all the cash dividends earned by the shares of stock and
reasonable compensation for the use of the two (2) motor vehicles;
that defendant Ariston, Jr. be ordered to pay the amount of
P191,533.00 received by him from BA Finance, with interest from the
time he received the amount until he fully pays the plaintiff; and,
damages, by way of attorneys fees and expenses of litigation, plus
costs.
On March 19, 1980, defendants Ariston, Sr. and Ariston Jr., filed their
answer, denying the material allegations in the complaint and
asserting that a copy of the Deed of Donation was submitted to the
Notarial Section of the CFI of Quezon City as early as July 2, 1979; that
the said document is valid and not a forgery or otherwise subject to
similar infirmity; that the said document being valid, the properties
covered therein passed in ownership to defendants, as early as April
20, 1979; and that defendants have the perfect and absolute right to
use, enjoy, possess and own these properties.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
The only direct evidence presented by petitioner on this matter is the

testimony of Zenaida Torres, Document Examinerof the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI). Respondents, on the other hand,
presented their own expert witness, Francisco Cruz, Chief of
Document Examinationof the PC-INP Crime Laboratory. Other direct
evidence presented by respondents includes testimonies positively
stating that the Deeds of Donation were signed by Consuelo in their
completed form in the presence of Notary Public Jose Sebastian.
These testimonies are that of Jose Sebastian himself, and that of
several of the respondents including Ariston Gomez, Jr. (Ariston, Jr.),
who allegedly drafted said Deeds of Donation.
Issue: Whether or not petitioner may disqualify Jose Sebastian, the

notary public who notarized the documents.
HELD:
The Court ruled that petitioner cannot disqualify Jose Sebastian.
Petitioner claims that no credence should have been given to the

testimony of the notary public, Jose Sebastian, as said Jose Sebastian
is the same judge whom this Court had dismissed from the service
in Garciano v. Sebastian.Petitioner posits that the dismissal of Judge
Jose Sebastian from the service casts a grave pall on his credibility as
a witness, especially given how, in the course of the administrative
proceedings against him, he had lied to mislead the investigator, as
well as employed others to distort the truth.
Petitioner further claims that the reliance by the Court of Appeals on

the 22 November 1979Certification by Jose Sebastian is misplaced,
considering the questionable circumstances surrounding such
certification. Petitioner points out that the Certification was made
after the death of Consuelo, and claims that the same appears to be a
scheme by Jose Sebastian to concoct an opportunity for him to make
mention of the subject Deeds of Donation intervivos, despite the plain
fact that the latter had utterly no relation to the matter referred to by
Jose Sebastian in the opening phrase of the letter.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
It is well to note that, as stated by the Court of Appeals, Jose

Sebastian was originally a witness for petitioner Augusto. As such,
Rule 132, Section 12, of the Rules of Court prohibits petitioner from
impeaching him:
SEC. 12. Party may not impeach his own witness. Except with respect
to witnesses referred to in paragraphs (d) and (e) of section 10, the
party producing a witness is not allowed to impeach his credibility.
A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared

by the court upon adequate showing of his adverse interest, unjustified
reluctance to testify, or his having misled the party into calling him to
the witness stand.
The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an

adverse party, may be impeached by the party presenting him in all
respects as if he had been called by the adverse party, except by
evidence of his bad character. He may also be impeached and cross-
examined by the adverse party, but such cross-examination must only
be on the subject matter of his examination-in-chief.
This rule is based on the theory that a person who produces a witness
vouches for him as being worthy of credit, and that a direct attack
upon the veracity of the witness would enable the party to destroy the
witness, if he spoke against him, and to make him a good witness, if
he spoke for him, with the means in his hands of destroying his credit,
if he spoke against him.
Neither had there been declaration by the court that Jose Sebastian
was an unwilling or hostile witness.Jose Sebastian is also neither an
adverse party, nor an officer, director nor a managing agent of a public
or private corporation or of a partnership or association which is an
adverse party.
Be that as it may, even if Jose Sebastian had been declared by the

court as an unwilling or hostile witness, the third paragraph of Section
12 as quoted above, in relation to Section 11 of the same Rule, only
allows the party calling the witness to impeach such witness by
contradictory evidence or by prior inconsistent statements, and never
by evidence of his bad character. Thus, Jose Sebastians subsequent
dismissal as a judge would not suffice to discredit him as a witness in
this case.
Advertisements
REPORT THIS AD
We have also ruled in People v. Dominguez,which, in turn

cited Cordial v. People, that:
(E)ven convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so

long as, having organs of sense, they can perceive and perceiving can
make known their perceptions to others.
The fact of prior criminal conviction alone does not suffice to discredit
a witness; the testimony of such a witness must be assayed and
scrutinized in exactly the same way the testimony of other witnesses
must be examined for its relevance and credibility. x x x. (Emphasis
supplied.)
The effect of this pronouncement is even more significant in this case,
as Jose Sebastian has never been convicted of a crime before his
testimony, but was instead administratively sanctioned eleven
years after such testimony. Scrutinizing the testimony of Jose
Sebastian, we find, as the trial court and the Court of Appeals did, no
evidence of bias on the part of Jose Sebastian. On top of this, Jose
Sebastians testimony is supported by the records of the notarial
registry, which shows that the documents in question were received
by the Notarial Registrar on 2 July 1979, which was four months before
the death of Consuelo on 6 November 1979.

Gomez Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gomez Digest

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gomez Digest

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gomez v. Gomez-Samson, G.R.

No. 156284, February 6, 2007

On February 15, 1980, [petitioner] instituted these cases, to wit: (1)

In Civil Case No. 36089, plaintiff AUGUSTO alleged in his complaint

On the basis of the foregoing, plaintiff prayed that the Deed of

On April 24, 1980, private defendants, and nominal defendants

The only direct evidence presented by petitioner on this matter is the

Issue: Whether or not petitioner may disqualify Jose Sebastian, the

The Court ruled that petitioner cannot disqualify Jose Sebastian.

Petitioner claims that no credence should have been given to the

Petitioner further claims that the reliance by the Court of Appeals on

It is well to note that, as stated by the Court of Appeals, Jose

A witness may be considered as unwilling or hostile only if so declared

The unwilling or hostile witness so declared, or the witness who is an

Be that as it may, even if Jose Sebastian had been declared by the

We have also ruled in People v. Dominguez,which, in turn

(E)ven convicted criminals are not excluded from testifying in court so

You might also like