Digest: Garbo vs Sps. Garabato

G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015
BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, MINDA G. ROSALES(NOW REPRESENTED BY HER NEW ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, GARY LLOYD G. ROSALES), Petitioner, v. SPOUSES VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO AND JOSEPHINE S. GARABATO, Respondents.
VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

Facts:

Nick Garbo was married to Eduviges Garabato. During their marriage, they had a daughter named (Florence) who in turn had a son out of wedlock, respondent Victorey Antonio Garabato (Victorey). During the subsistence of Nick and Eduviges’ marriage, Nick cohabited with petitioner Betty Gepulle-Garbo (Betty).

A Deed of Sale was executed between Eduviges and Florence whereby the former sold to the latter a 303-square meter parcel of land, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17986. The deed of sale was signed by Nick Garbo.

Eduviges passed away. Three months after, Nick married Betty. Florence registered the property in her name and was issued TCT No. 126959. Florence died on March 4, 1992 while Nick died on February 28, 1996.

In 1996, respondent Victorey, married to co-respondent Josephine, registered the subject property in his name by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed by Florence in his favor. respondent was issued TCT No. 136900.

petitioner filed a petition for cancellation of TCT No. 136900 against respondents. She impugns the validity of the June 17, 1977 Deed of Sale on the ground that the signatures of Nick and Eduviges were forged by Florence. Petitioner also assailed the deed of sale between Florence and Victorey.

Petitioner claimed that Nick had previously sought the examination of his alleged signature on Deed of Sale by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI examiner allegedly found that the questioned signature and the standard signatures of Nick were not written by one and the same person.

The RTC held that petitioner failed to prove that the signatures of Nick and Eduviges Garbo were forgeries. The RTC did not give credence to the testimony of Albacea, holding that courts are not bound by expert testimonies and that the relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide.

 

the CA affirmed the RTC ruling.

Issue(s):

Whether the RTC are not bound by expert testimonies and that the relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide.

Ruling:

 

The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion. This principle holds true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.