GR 29663; (December, 1928)

EN BANC

G.R. No. 29663          December 29, 1928

MANUEL ALEJANDRINO, applicant-appellee,

vs.
ERIBERTO REYES, as administrator of the estate of the deceased Gregoria Pangan, oppositor-appellant.

Jose Ma. T. Reyes for appellant.
Aurelio Pineda for appellee.

OSTRAND, J.:

Manuel Alejandrino applied for the registration for four parcels of land referred to as lots Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the plans attached to the application. Among others, Eriberto Reyes, as special administrator of the estate of the deceased Gregoria Pangan, opposed the registration of the parcels.

Upon trial the Court of First Instance ordered the registration of lots Nos. 1, 3, and 4 and denied the registration of lot No. 2. From this decision the oppositor, Eriberto Reyes, appealed to this court.

It appears from the record that the three lost in question were originally the paraphernal property of the deceased Gregoria Pangan, and that he, on March 1, 1922, executed a deed of sale with the right to repurchase for said lots in favor of Alejandrino. Upon expiration of the term for the purchase, Alejandrino, Gregoria Pangan, accompanied by her husband, Vicente Cabigting, executed a deed of title in the simple in favor of Alejandrino for the three lots. The appellant bases his appeal on the ground that the deed of November 14, 1923, is fictitious and that the vendor’s signature of the same is not authentic. We cannot find the slightest indication that such s the case. Gregoria Pangan’s signature on the deed of sale with right to repurchase of March 11, 1922, is admittedly authentic, and a comparison between the signature and that in the document in question convinces us that the vendor’s signature in the two documents were written by the same person.

The appellant also arises the point that Gregoria Pangan was a married woman and that she, in executing the deed, did not have a proper license from her husband to sell the property in question. The answer to this assertion is that no special form is required for such license, and that it appears that in executing the documents in question, Gregoria Pangan was accompanied by her husband and that he also signed the document. That, in our opinion, is a sufficient license.1awphi1.net

At the trial of the case, the appellant presented two documents, Exhibit 4 and 5, for the purpose of comparing the alleged signature of Gregoria Pangan in these documents with that in the deed in question. The court below declined to admit the exhibits in evidence on the ground that they were private documents and that the authenticity of the signatures therein had not been proven. The appellant’s contention that this ruling was erroneous is untenable; the court had a perfect right to insist on proof of the authenticity of the documents before receiving them in evidence.

We are unable to find any reversible error in the decision appealed from the same is therefore affirmed with the costs against the appellant. So ordered.

Avanceña, C. J., Johnson, Malcolm, Villamor, Johns, and Romualdez, JJ., concur.

Batas Pinas