Vergillo Dycoco vs Adelaida

Topics: Real Estate Mortgage; Ejectment suit; Objection to the presentation of

evidence is an implied admission of its authenticity;

Facts:

Dycoco is the owner of the parcel of land in litigation, who is currently in

U.S practicing medical profession. His property was occupied by his brothers-in-
law. The latter received a notice of complaint for ejectment from Evilyn, the
attorney-in-fact of Adelaida. Evilyn alleged that the subject property is mortgaged
by Dycoco, who failed to pay his obligation resulting to extrajudicial foreclosure of
the property, to which, as a consequence, result to cancellation of the title in
possession of Dycoco and the issuance of TCT in favour of Adalaida. Dycoco’s
attorneys-in-fact-brothers-in-law filed a complaint for the annulment of REM and
TCT. They claim that Dycoco was in U.S at the time of the execution of the REM.
They also presented Dycoco’s U.S passport, personal checks, SPA (which was
notarized in U.S.) and Affidavit. Adelaida, on her part, presented Evilyn who
testified on a photocopy of the REM. In the acknowledgement portion of the
REM, however, there is no manifestation of any name of any person who
personally appeared before the notary public. Adelaida also claimed that the
evidence presented by Dycoco’s atty-in-fact is immaterial, irrelevant and
impertinent. The trial court ruled in favour of Adelaida, which was affirmed by the
CA.

Issue: WON the trial court and CA correctly ruled in favour of Adelaida.

Ruling: No.

Since the subject REM was not properly notarized, its public character does
not hold.

Since the REM is not a public document, it is subject to the requirement of proof
for private documents under Section 20, Rule 132, which provides:
“Before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due
execution and authenticity must be proved either:
 (a) By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or
(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker.”

It was thus incumbent upon Adelaida to prove that Dycocos signature is genuine.
As stated earlier, a mere photocopy of the REM was presented.

Furthermore, in respondents Comment/Opposition to Dycocos formal offer of

evidence, the passport was objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant and
impertinent. Such comment is a virtual admission of the authenticity of the
entries in the passport, hence there is no need to present Dycoco on the witness
stand to testify on its authenticity.

Doctrines:

1. In respondents Comment/Opposition to Dycocos formal offer of evidence,

the passport was objected to as being immaterial, irrelevant and
impertinent.
Such comment is a virtual admission of the authenticity of the entries in the
passport.
2. As stated earlier, a mere photocopy of the REM was presented. It is
axiomatic that when the genuineness of signatures on a document is sought
to be proved or disproved through comparison of standard signatures with
the questioned signature, the original thereof must be presented.