Vicente Manzano, Jr.

, petitioner
---vs--Marcelino Garcia, respondent
R132 S23 Public Document as Evidence
FACTS:
1. This case involves a land sold through a pacto de retro, where the seller is Respondent
Garcia and the buyer is Petitioners predecessor-in-interest Constancio Manzano. Under
the pacto de retro, Garcia reserved the right to repurchase within three months.
2. When Constancio passed away, herein petitioner Vicente was the administrator of the
intestate estate. Seeing that Garcia did not redeem the property within 3 months, Vicente
filed a petition for consolidation of ownership.
a. Garcia opposed this and said that the pacto de retro sale was a forgery; that he
and his wife could not have signed the said pacto de retro sale as they were in the
USA at the time.
b. Garcia then filed a complaint for the annulment of the pacto de retro sale and
recovery of owners title.
3. The cases were consolidated and tried by the trial court.
a. Vicente presented the TCT over the property and the notarized duly executed
pacto de retro sale.
b. Garcia presented IDs showing how different his signatures were from the one
appearing in the pacto de retro sale
c. Witnesses, the attorney who notarized the pacto de retro and the witness to the
notarization both testified that the person who introduced himself as Marcelino
Garcia during the notarization was not the same person as the one now in court
(the real Marcelino is the one in court)
4. RTC ruled IFO Vicente, upholding the validity of the notarized public document and
saying that Garcia failed to overcome its presumption of validity. CA Reversed.
5. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE: W/N the presumption of validity has been overcome
HELD: YES.
Vicente in this case is arguing that Garcia should have presented an expert witness to show that
his signatures were forged. SC disagrees. Expert opinion is not binding on the courts and the
courts still has the discretion whether to consider it or not, or base their decision on their own.
While there are cases (Rivera v Turiano) where the courts found necessary to refer to an expert
witness, the same is not true in this case. It is clear from the evidence of Garcia that there is
discrepancy in the signatures between his IDs and the one on the pacto de retro. The court can
readily conclude that it was indeed forgery.

Vicente likewise argues in upholding the presumption of regularity in a notarized deed of pacto
de retro sale. While it is true that a notarized document enjoys such presumption, it is not
absolute and may be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. Irregularities in a notarized
documents may be established by oral evidence of persons present in the notarization.
In this case, the presumption has been overcome by the testimony of the attorney who notarized
the document. As the very official who attested to the crucial facts of the notarization, he
admitted in open court that the person who appeared before him is different from the one now
in Court.
WHEREFORE, petition is DENIED.