View full case

SPS. DENNIS ORSOLINO v. VIOLETA FRANY

FACTS:

This case involves a complaint for ejectment filed by Spouses Noel and Violeta Frany (respondent) against Spouses Dennis and Melody Orsolino (petitioners). The disputed property is a house and lot located in Quezon City. The respondent claimed that petitioner Dennis' mother authorized his brother Sander to sell the property to the respondent. According to the respondent, despite repeated demands to vacate, the petitioners failed to do so.

On the other hand, the petitioners argued that they have been occupying the property since 2000 and that they derived their right to stay from their mother. They contested the claim that the property was sold to the respondent.

The case was initially heard by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), which ruled in favor of the respondent. However, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) later set aside the MeTC's ruling. The Court of Appeals (CA), upon review, reinstated the MeTC's judgment. The CA found that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and Deed of Sale were validly executed, and the petitioners failed to prove that forgery had occurred.

Disputing the authenticity and due execution of the SPA and Deed of Sale, the petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not the authenticity and due execution of the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) and Deed of Absolute Sale have been sufficiently established.

  2. Whether the alterations on the date and place of execution of the SPA and Deed of Sale affect their validity.

  3. Whether the subject property was conjugal and if the presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code applies.

  4. Whether Spouses Orsolino have the right to possess the subject property.

  5. Whether the demand letter was received by Spouses Orsolino and if there was a prior conciliation proceeding before the barangay.

RULING:

  1. The petition is bereft of merit. The Court agrees with the conclusion of the Court of Appeals (CA) and the Municipal Trial Court (MeTC) that the validity of the SPA and Deed of Sale must be upheld on the ground that they enjoy the presumption of regularity as public documents. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, and in this case, the Spouses Orsolino failed to overcome this burden. The mere variance of signatures and the unexplained erasures and alterations in the documents do not automatically prove forgery. The Spouses Orsolino did not present sufficient evidence to substantiate their allegation of forgery or to prove that the alterations changed the intended meaning of the documents.

  2. The alterations on the date and place of execution of the SPA and Deed of Sale do not affect their validity because the payments received by the attorney-in-fact were made on the date of the altered Deed of Sale. The evidence regarding the payments was not rebutted by Spouses Orsolino, and Sander, who prepared the documents, was not confronted during the trial.

  3. The presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code, that all property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership, does not apply because Spouses Orsolino failed to present evidence that Carolina acquired the subject property during her marriage. The subject property was not proven to be conjugal.

  4. Spouses Orsolino do not have the right to possess the subject property as they were not the registered owners and did not present solid proof to substantiate their claim. They were allowed to stay on the property by mere tolerance of Carolina.

  5. Spouses Orsolino's claim that they did not receive the demand letter and that no prior conciliation proceeding before the barangay was conducted is contradicted by the evidence on record. The respondent attempted to personally deliver the demand letter but was refused, and there is a Certificate to File Action issued by the Punong Barangay indicating the referral of the case for possible conciliation.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Factual issues are not within the ambit of the Court's review.

  • Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

  • Variance of signatures does not automatically prove forgery.

  • The authenticity and due execution of a public document enjoy a presumption of regularity.

  • Unexplained erasures and alterations in a document do not invalidate it if they do not change the intended meaning.

  • Alterations on the date and place of execution of a contract do not affect its validity as long as the payments and actual execution correspond to the altered document.

  • The presumption under Article 160 of the Civil Code, that all property of the marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership, applies only when there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage.

  • Mere tolerance does not confer possession or ownership rights over a property.

  • In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption is that a demand letter sent through regular mail has been received by the addressee.

  • A Certificate to File Action issued by the Punong Barangay suffices to prove that a case was referred to the barangay for possible conciliation.