GR 176358; (June, 2008) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176358; June 17, 2008
BIENVENIDO LIBRES and JULIE L. PANINGBATAN, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES RODRIGO DELOS SANTOS and MARTINA OLBA, respondents.
FACTS
Respondents Spouses Delos Santos filed a complaint for foreclosure of real estate mortgage against petitioners Bienvenido Libres and Julie Paningbatan. Respondents alleged that Libres executed three mortgage deeds over a property to secure three loans totaling P150,000, which were delivered to Paningbatan upon Libres’s instruction. Petitioners defaulted on payment. Petitioners, in their defense, denied the loan and claimed the mortgage documents were falsified, with Libres’s signature being forged. Libres specifically denied authorizing Paningbatan for such transactions and presented an NBI handwriting expert who concluded the signatures on the deeds were not his.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, giving credence to the NBI expert’s findings of forgery and noting inconsistencies in respondents’ evidence. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding petitioners liable for the P150,000 loan. The appellate court found the notarized deeds to be public documents entitled to a presumption of regularity and authenticity, which petitioners failed to overcome with clear and convincing evidence of forgery. It ordered petitioners to pay the amount with interest or face foreclosure.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and holding petitioners liable based on the notarized mortgage deeds, despite the NBI expert’s finding of forgery.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The legal logic centers on the evidentiary weight of notarized documents versus expert testimony on handwriting. Notarized documents are public documents that carry the presumption of regularity in their execution; their due execution and authenticity must be proved as a fact only when they are specifically denied under oath. Here, Libres’s general denial in his answer was insufficient to overcome this presumption.
The Court emphasized that while expert opinion is valuable, it is not binding. The factual findings of the trial court, especially its preference for the NBI expert’s testimony, were not conclusive. The appellate court correctly re-evaluated the evidence and found the totality of respondents’ evidence—including the notarization by two notaries public, registration with the Registry of Deeds, and testimonies of barangay officials regarding petitioners’ admission of debt—to be more credible and sufficient to establish the loan’s existence. Petitioners’ claim of a much smaller loan (P13,000) was inconsistent and unsupported. Thus, the notarized documents, enjoying a strong presumption of validity, prevailed over the contested expert opinion.