THIRD DIVISION

[G.R. No. 199992. April 19, 2017.]

DAVID ORENSE, JR. , petitioner, vs. ARACELI M. RECASAS,

respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution
dated April 19, 2017, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"G.R. No. 199992 (David Orense, Jr. vs. Araceli M. Recasas) . —

This is a petition for review on certiorari 1 under Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court seeking to annul and set aside the Decision 2 dated April 15, 2011 and
Resolution 3 dated January 5, 2012 issued by the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CA-G.R. CV No. 86964.
On July 24, 2002, David Orense, Jr. (David) filed a complaint with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bacoor, Cavite, which sought the declaration of
nullity of the deed of sale over the property covered by Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-96915 executed by his mother, the late Remedios
Monzon Vda. De Orense (Remedios) in favor of her sister Araceli M. Recasas
(Araceli). David claimed that Remedios could not have executed the said
deed of sale since at the time it was executed in December 1988, she was
already bed-ridden and blind and, thus, was mentally incapable of giving her
consent on the alleged sale. David also claimed that the thumb mark
appearing on the deed of sale, which represented the signature of Remedios
thereto, does not belong to his mother. 4
In her Answer, Araceli averred that the sale of the property covered by
TCT No. T-96915 in her favor, for which she paid P230,000.00, was valid,
legal and binding. Araceli claimed that Remedios, at the time she executed
the deed of sale, only had a blurred vision and not blind as alleged by David.
She also alleged that Remedios was physically and mentally of sound and
disposing mind when she affixed her thumb mark on the deed of sale. 5
During the trial, David presented the respective findings of National
Bureau of Investigation fingerprint examiners Roque R. Rabino (Rabino) and
Lolita F. Royo (Royo). 6 The pertinent portions of Rabino's findings are as
follows:
6. RESULT OF EXAMINATION: After thorough examination,
comparison and analysis of specimen item No. 5 A, B and C. It
was established that fingerprint marked as Q-1 is blurred; while
fingerprint marked as Q-2 do not match the standard fingerprint
marked as "S."

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]

 7. OPINION: In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully submitted
that fingerprint marked as "Q-2" [was] not impressed by and
[does] not belong to the fingerprint of [Remedios]. 7 (Citations
omitted)
Royo, upon examination of the questioned thumb mark, made a similar
conclusion:
6. RESULT OF EXAMINATION: After having a thorough
examination, comparison and analysis, questioned fingerprint
mentioned in item no. 5B was found not identical with the standard
fingerprint mentioned in item no. 5C. Fingerprint mentioned in item
no. 5A was found blurred and cannot be utilized for comparison and
identification.
7. OPINION: In view of the foregoing result of the
examination, fingerprints mentioned in item nos. 5B and 5C [belong]
to different [persons]. 8 (Citations omitted)
On the other hand, Araceli presented the testimonies of Atty. Ponciano
F. Espiritu (Atty. Espiritu), the notary public appearing on the deed of sale,
and Cristina de Quiroz (de Quiroz), a witness to the sale. 9
On June 16, 2005, the RTC, after due proceedings, rendered a Decision,
the decretal portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered[,] the complaint against
[Araceli] is hereby DISMISSED and since both parties did not adduce
evidence[,] documentary or otherwise, the claim for damages in the
complaint as well as in the counterclaim are both ordered dismissed.
However, [Araceli] is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of Fifty
Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos.
SO ORDERED. 10

The RTC pointed out that the respective findings of Rabino and Royo,
though persuasive, is not binding upon it. The RTC, giving more credence to
the testimonies of Atty. Espiritu and de Quiroz, ruled that a notarized
document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and that documents acknowledged before a notary public
have in their favor the presumption of regularity. 11
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision 12 dated April 15, 2011, affirmed the
RTC's disposition, viz.: aScITE

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, [David's] appeal is

DENIED. Accordingly, the court a quo's Decision dated 16 June 2005
is hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED. 13

The CA opined that David failed to substantiate his claim that his
mother's thumb mark appearing on the questioned deed of sale was
falsified. It ruled that the findings of Rabino and Royo do not constitute clear
and convincing evidence that can overrule the testimonies of Atty. Espiritu
and de Quiroz, who both testified that Remedios affixed her thumb mark on
the deed of sale. 14 The CA further held that David failed to adduce any
evidence to prove his claim that Araceli exerted undue influence on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 Remedios. 15

David sought reconsideration 16 but it was denied by the CA in its

Resolution 17 dated January 5, 2012.
Essentially, the issue presented for the Court's resolution is whether
the lower courts erred in ruling that the thumb mark of Remedios appearing
on the deed of sale was not falsified.
Ruling of the Court

The petition is denied.

First, it is well settled that the findings of fact of the lower courts,
especially when affirmed by the CA, are binding upon this Court. 18 While
there are exceptions to this rule, 19 the present case does not fall under any
one of them. The RTC's finding that the thumb mark of Remedios appearing
on the questioned deed of sale was not falsified is a finding of fact which is
binding on this Court, especially considering that it was affirmed by the
appellate court.
Second, this petition only assails the factual findings of the lower
courts; David failed to present a question of law to be resolved by this Court.
It is elementary that only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45. 20 For a question to be one of law, it must
involve no examination of the probative value of the evidence presented by
the litigants or any of them. There is a question of law when the doubt or
difference arises as to what the law is pertaining to a certain state of facts.
On the other hand, there is a question of fact when the doubt arises as to
the truth or the falsity of alleged facts. 21
The resolution of the issue raised by David in this petition for review on
certiorari unquestionably involves an examination of the probative value of
the evidence presented by the parties. It necessitates a recalibration of the
evidence of the parties and the credibility of their witnesses, i.e., the
testimonies of Atty. Espiritu and de Quiroz who saw Remedios affix her
thumb mark on the deed of sale and the findings of fingerprint experts
Rabino and Royo.
Third, the lower courts correctly ruled that the findings of the
fingerprint experts presented by David are merely persuasive and are not
binding upon the courts.
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Revised Rules of Court states that
the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge,
skill, experience or training, which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence. The use of the word "may" signifies that the use
of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on
the part of the courts. Allowing the testimony does not mean, too,
that courts are bound by the testimony of the expert witness. The
testimony of an expert witness must be construed to have been
presented not to sway the court in favor of any of the parties, but to
assist the court in the determination of the issue before it, and is for
the court to adopt or not to adopt depending on its appreciation of the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]
 attendant facts and the applicable law. x x x. 22
Lastly, in Libres, et al. v. Spouses Delos Santos and Olba, 23 the Court
stated:
Notarial documents executed with all the legal requisites under
the safeguard of a notarial certificate is evidence of a high character.
To overcome its recitals, it is incumbent upon the party challenging it
to prove his claim with clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant evidence. A notarial document, guaranteed by public
attestation in accordance with the law, must be sustained in full force
and effect so long as he who impugns it does not present strong,
complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of
some flaws or defects provided bylaw. x x x. 24 (Citations omitted)
Further, it is elementary that forgery, or in this case falsification,
cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence, and the burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery or
falsification. 25
The Court finds that David failed to present clear and convincing
evidence to rebut the recitals contained in the notarized deed of sale.
Indeed, the lower courts were correct in giving more credence to the
testimonies of Atty. Espiritu and de Quiroz over the findings of the
fingerprint experts considering that they actually saw Remedios affix her
thumb mark on the questioned deed of sale. Atty. Espiritu categorically
stated that he went to Remedios' house, read the contents of the deed of
sale, had her affix her thumb mark on it and, thereafter, notarized the
document. Atty. Espiritu's testimony was affirmed by de Quiroz, who was a
witness to the document. 26
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition for
review on certiorari is hereby DENIED. The Decision dated April 15, 2011
and Resolution dated January 5, 2012 issued by the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. CV No. 86964 are AFFIRMED." HEITAD

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITAN

Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo , pp. 8-33.
2. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with Associate Justices Amelita
G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizzaro concurring; id. at 42-56.
3. Id. at 39-41.

4. Id. at 43-45.
5. Id. at 43-44.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]

 6. Id.
7. Id. at 51.
8. Id. at 52.

9. Id. at 44.
10. Id. at 43.

11. Id. at 45.

12. Id. at 42-56.

13. Id. at 56.

14. Id. at 53.
15. Id. at 55.

16. Id. at 57-62.

17. Id. at 39-41.

18. Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461, 469 (2003).
19. See Development Bank of the Philippines v. Traders Royal Bank, et al., 642 Phil.
547, 556-557 (2010).
20. RULES OF COURT, Rule 45, Section 1.
21. See Manila Bay Club Corporation v. CA, 315 Phil. 805, 820 (1995).

22. Tabao v. People of the Philippines, 669 Phil. 486, 507 (2011).
23. 577 Phil. 509 (2008).

24. Id. at 520.

25. See Lee v. People of the Philippines, et al., 681 Phil. 612, 619 (2012).

26. Rollo , p. 53.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 [Link]