View full case

VIRGILIO DYCOCO v. ADELAIDA ORINA JOINED BY HER HUSBAND GERMAN R. ORINA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) executed by Virgilio Dycoco in favor of Adelaida Orina. Adelaida claimed that Dycoco executed the REM to secure a debt owed to her. However, Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact alleged that Dycoco's signature on the REM was forged. To support their claim, they presented documents such as Dycoco's U.S. passport, which showed he was in the United States at the time of the REM's execution. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Dycoco's complaint for annulment of the REM, ruling that Dycoco failed to prove that Adelaida had knowledge of the alleged forgery. The Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal, stating that the evidence presented by Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact was not probative as it lacked Dycoco's testimony to establish the authenticity of the documents. Dycoco's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the filing of a petition for review on certiorari. Subsequently, it was discovered that the REM was not properly notarized, rendering it not a public document.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the Real Estate Mortgage (REM) was properly executed and notarized.

  2. Whether or not Dycoco's signature on the REM was forged.

  3. Whether or not the evidence presented by Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact to prove that Dycoco was working in the United States on the date of execution of the REM is admissible.

  4. Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's dismissal of Dycoco's complaint.

RULING:

  1. The REM was not properly executed and notarized because the acknowledgment portion of the document was incomplete as it did not state the name of the person who personally appeared before the notary public.

  2. The trial court held that Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact failed to establish that the defendant knew that it was not Dycoco who mortgaged the property. Therefore, the issue of the forgery of Dycoco's signature on the REM was not sufficiently proven.

  3. The Court of Appeals held that the evidence presented by Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact, such as his U.S. passport showing that he was not in the Philippines when the REM was executed, did not have probative value because Dycoco himself was not presented on the witness stand to establish the genuineness, due execution, and contents of the documentary evidence.

  4. The Court of Appeals did not err in affirming the trial court's dismissal of Dycoco's complaint because Dycoco's attorneys-in-fact failed to establish the genuineness and due execution of the REM, and the evidence presented was deemed insufficient to prove Dycoco's claims.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Documents acknowledged before a notary public, except last wills and testaments, are public documents.

  • Evidence presented must have probative value and must be properly established to be admissible in court.