G.R. No. 184843 ; July 30, 2010
VIRGILIO DYCOCO, represented by his Attorneys-in-fact CRISTINO C. GRAFILO, JOSE C. GRAFILO and ADOLFO C. GRAFILO, and the said GRAPHILOS in their own behalf, Petitioners, vs. ADELAIDA ORINA joined by her husband GERMAN R. ORINA as represented by her Attorney-in-fact EVELYN M. SAGALONGOS and for in the latter’s own behalf, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Virgilio Dycoco, a physician working in the USA, was alleged to have executed a Real Estate Mortgage (REM) over his Manila property on October 9, 1995, in favor of respondent Adelaida Orina, to secure a loan. Upon Dycoco’s alleged default, Adelaida extrajudicially foreclosed the mortgage, consolidated title, and filed an ejectment case against Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact/brothers-in-law, the Grafilo brothers, who occupied the property. In response, Dycoco, through the Grafilo brothers, filed a complaint for annulment of the REM and the resulting title, claiming his signature on the mortgage was forged. Petitioners presented Dycoco’s U.S. passport and other documents to prove he was abroad on the date of the REM’s execution. Respondents, defending the REM’s validity, presented only a photocopy of the document and the testimony of Adelaida’s attorney-in-fact, Evelyn Sagalongos, who claimed Dycoco was present during the signing.

ISSUE

Whether the Real Estate Mortgage is valid and binding upon Virgilio Dycoco.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition and declared the REM null and void. The Court’s legal logic centered on the document’s defective notarization and the consequent failure to prove its due execution. The acknowledgment in the photocopied REM was incomplete, as it blankly omitted the name of the person who appeared before the notary public. Under the law, such defective notarization strips the document of its character as a public document. It is thus treated as a private document, the due execution and authenticity of which must be proved under the Rules of Court.
The burden to prove the genuineness of Dycoco’s signature therefore shifted to respondent Adelaida Orina. She failed to discharge this burden. She presented only a photocopy of the REM, which is insufficient for a handwriting comparison to authenticate the signature. Furthermore, the testimony of her witness, Evelyn Sagalongos, was unreliable. Sagalongos testified that Dycoco was present at the signing, but this was directly contradicted by his passport entries. Her claim of being a witness was also belied by the document itself, which did not list her as such. Petitioners, conversely, presented credible documentary evidence, including Dycoco’s passport, supporting his absence from the country. The Court found the totality of evidence clearly established that Dycoco did not execute the mortgage. Therefore, the REM was annulled for being a forgery.