GR 167884; (January, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 167884 January 20, 2009
ENRICO S. EULOGIO, Petitioner, vs. SPOUSES CLEMENTE APELES and LUZ APELES, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Enrico S. Eulogio (Enrico) filed a Complaint for Specific Performance with Damages against respondents, spouses Clemente and Luz Apeles (spouses Apeles), before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City. The complaint was based on a purported Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase dated January 26, 1987, involving a house and lot at No. 87 Timog Avenue, Quezon City. The contract, which named Luz Apeles as attorney-in-fact for her husband, granted Enrico a three-year lease and an option to purchase the property for a price not exceeding ₱1.5 Million, with rentals to be deducted from the purchase price. Enrico alleged he exercised the option before the lease expired, but the spouses Apeles ignored him. The spouses Apeles denied the contract’s validity, asserting that Luz’s signature was forged, presenting her passport to show she was in the United States on January 26, 1987. Enrico later changed his testimony, stating Luz signed the contract after returning to the Philippines on May 30, 1987. The RTC ruled in favor of Enrico, finding no forgery and ordering the spouses Apeles to execute a deed of sale. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing Enrico’s complaint after finding the notarization irregular and the defense of forgery substantiated.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in reversing the RTC’s factual findings and ruling that the Contract of Lease with Option to Purchase was forged and thus null and void.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the appellate court has the discretion to make an independent determination of the case’s merits, especially when the factual findings are based on document assessment rather than witness credibility. The Court found that the defense of forgery was substantially proven. The notarization of the contract was irregular, as the notary public failed to ensure the parties’ personal appearance, given Luz Apeles’s proven absence from the country on the stated execution date. Enrico’s inconsistent testimonies regarding the signing date further undermined his credibility and the contract’s validity. The contract, being void due to forgery, produced no legal effect. Therefore, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Enrico’s complaint for specific performance.