REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES

COURT OF APPEALS
MANILA
THIRD DIVISION

HEIRS OF GEPHARINE MENDOZA,

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

- versus -

CA-G.R. CV No.

055421
RTC Civil Case
7437
For: Annulment of
Sale and
Reconveyance of
Land

SPOUSES LUIS AND LUISA YAP,

Defendants-Appellees
x-------------------------------------x

APPELLEES BRIEF

COMES

NOW

DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES,

by

the

undersigned counsel, unto this Honorable Court, respectfully

state that:

PREPARATORY STATEMENT

1. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a complaint for Annulment of

Sale and Reconveyance of Land against the DefendantAppellees at the Regional Trial Court of Iriga on 1997
2. The Regional Trial Court of Iriga dismissed said
complaint on the ground of prescription and lack of
clear and convincing evidence, among other grounds.
3. Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a notice of appeal and an
appellants brief.
4. Hence, this appellees brief.
STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. On October 11, 1982, the 247-sqm lot in San Isidro,

Iriga City, Camarines Sur, was sold to Mario Mendoza
(Mario) under a deed of absolute sale.
2. Six years later in 1988, Mario offered to sell the lot to
defendant-appellees spouses Luis and Luisa Yap. On
April 29, 1988, the two parties signed an agreement to
sell prepared by Atty. James Lebron. The agreement
expressly stated that it was to take effect in six (6)

months. The agreement required the Yap spouses to

pay Mario a down payment of P60,000.00 for the
transfer of the lots title to him. And, within six months,
Mario was to clear the lot of structures and occupants
and secure the consent of his estranged wife,
Gepharine Mendoza (Gepharine) to the sale.
3. On January 11, 1989, Mario executed a deed of absolute
sale in favor of the Yap spouses.
4. On February 15, 1989, a new title was issued in the
name of the spouses.
5. On January 28, 1990, Mario passed away, followed by
his wife Gepharine who died nine months afterwards.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERRORS

1. The Trial Court did not err in denying the testimony of

the handwriting expert in claiming that the signature of
Gepharine was forged.
2. The Trial Court did not commit a reversible error in
dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action
against Defendants-Appellees had already prescribed.
ARGUMENTS
The Trial Court did not err
in denying the testimony
of the handwriting expert

in

claiming

signature

of

that

the

Gepharine

was forged.

While the defendants-appellees agree that the finding

of forgery does not depend on the testimony of handwriting
experts and that the judge must make its own finding as to
the authenticity of the signatures 1 the testimony of the
presented handwriting expert nor the personal determination
of the judge of the authenticity of said signature were not
necessary as the plaintiff-appellants failed to show cause for
the admission of such testimony nor the determination of the
judge because there was no clear and convincing evidence
of fraud, and that the documents prepared by Atty. LeBron
enjoys the presumption of regularity, as stated in the case of
Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc., vs CA 2 :

notarized

document

carries

the

evidentiary weight conferred upon it

with respect to its due execution, and it
has in its favor the presumption of
regularity which may only be rebutted
1 Jimenez vs. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, G.R. No. 140472
2 G.R. No. 125283

by

evidence

so

clear,

strong

and

convincing as to exclude all controversy

as to the falsity of the certificate. Absent
such, the presumption must be upheld.
The burden of proof to overcome the
presumption of due execution of a
notarial

document

lies

on

the

one

contesting the same. Furthermore, an

allegation of forgery must be proved by
clear

and

convincing

evidence,

and

whoever alleges it has the burden of

proving the same.

This principle is well set into our jurisprudence that the

defendants-appellants find no reason to neither disturb
jurisprudential doctrine nor find any reason to disturb the
ruling of the Regional Trial Court in correctly denying the
admission of such testimony.

The

Trial

Court

did

not

commit a reversible error

in

dismissing

the

complaint on the ground

that

the

action

against

Defendants-Appellees had
already prescribed.

The Defendants-Appellants maintain that article 1391 of

the Civil Code of the Philippines is the law that should be
applied to the case at hand and not Article 173 of the Family
Code. Clearly Article 173 of the Family Code is only
applicable when there is no consent given by the spouse or
there are acts committed by the husband which tend to
defraud the wife or impair her interest 3. In the case at hand
it is very clear that there is consent given evidenced by the
affidavit accomplished by Gerpharine and notarized by Atty.
LeBron, which the Plaintiffs-Appellants failed to assail and
enjoys the presumption of regularity.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, premises considered, it is respectfully prayed

for that the instant appeal be DENIED for lack of merit.

Other reliefs just and equitable under the premises are

likewise prayed for.

3 Article 173, Family Code of the Philippines

Makati City, 7 June 2014.

By:

Irao & Irao Law

55th floor Tall Building,
6701 Ayala Avenue
Makati City
Tel. No.: 999-9999
Email: frontdesk@iraolaw.com

GENESIS PAUL C. IRAO

PTR. No. 5555555/5.5.2014
IBP Lifetime No. 555555
Roll No. 55555
MCLE Exemption No. III-5555
Tel. No. 999-9999 loc 999
Email: gci@iraolaw.com
Copy Furnished:
Hon. Timothy Duncan
Municipal Trial Court
Iriga City, Camarines Sur
ATTY. MIGUEL GABIONZA
10th Floor, New Building,
Makati Avenue, Makati City

WRITTEN EXPLANATION

(Pursuant to Section 11, Rule 13, 1997 Rules of Civil

Procedure)

Filing and service of this Memorandum of Appeal to the

above-mentioned

parties

was

accomplished

through

registered mail since personal service could not be effected

due to the distance between the parties, and the heavy
volume of deliveries of the messengers of the law firm of the
undersigned counsel.

GENESIS PAUL C. IRAO