University of the Philippines College of Law

Topic Prior Testimony (Rule 130, Section 47)

Case No. G.R. No. 154087 / October 25, 2005
Case Name Ilao-Quianay v. Mapile
Ponente Tinga, J.
Digester MSI / Group 3

Quick Facts
Cause of Action Assailing the validity of Deed of Sale
(Complaint/ Information)
Evidence in Question Notarized Deed of Sale
How was it raised to the SC? Petition for Review on Certiorari
Trial Court Decision In favor of respondent Mapile
Supreme Court Decisions In favor of respondent Mapile

SUMMARY
Petitioners herein assail the validity of a Deed of Sale covering a property which originally belongs to the estate of Ilao. Respondent
herein avers that he lawfully acquired the land through a valid sale. The evidence in question is the Notarized Deed of Sale. The Court
ruled that (1) the testimony of expert witnesses are not binding upon the court, and (2) the testimony of the notary public in this case
does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule.

RELEVANT FACTS
 Subject of the case was a parcel of land in Sta. Cruz, Manila owned by the deceased Simplicio Ilao. In a judicial settlement of
Ilao’s estate, the heirs found an adverse claim annotated at the back of TCT No. 48529 claimed by certain Juanito Ibarra.
 Respondent Atty. Mapile filed a motion to exclude the said property from the inventory claiming that it did not form part of
Ilao’s estate, the land having been disposed of during the latter’s lifetime in favor of Ibarra.
 Ibarra filed a petition for issuance of new owner’s duplicate copy of subject property claiming it was lost by fire. (This was
later on found by the lower court to be false since the Ilao heirs were able to present the certificate of title Ibarra claimed to
have been lost.)
 Acting upon Mapile’s motion, petitioners (administrators of the estate) filed a case for quieting of title and damages before the
RTC of Manila.
 Mapile then filed a case for Specific Performance and Declaration of Nullity of Contract, averring that Ilao sold the property
to Ibarra through a Deed of Sale; subsequently Ibarra sold the property to him.
 The RTC rendered decision upholding the validity of the notarized Deed of Sale primarily due to the conflicting testimonies of
the two handwriting experts presented by both parties. Petitioners were ordered to surrended the owner’s duplicate copy of the
title.
 The CA affirmed the trial court’s decision and stated that the appellate court does not take cognizance of cases based on question
of fact but only questions of law via a petition for review.
 Hence, this appeal. The errors assigned on appeal dwell on the twin findings that the deed of sale between Ilao and Ibarra was
genuine and that the subject property was validly transferred to respondent. They also question the probative value given by
the trial court and the Court of Appeals to the notarized deed of sale. They stress that the trial court even went to the extent of
admitting in evidence the transcript of the testimony of the notary public who purportedly notarized the document taken in
LRC Cad. Rec. No. 271 in which petitioners were not named parties, while the appellate court for its part sustained the lower
courts action.

RATIO DECIDENDI

Issue Ratio
W/N the testimony of an expert  The issue on whether Ilao’s signature in the Deed of Sale was a forgery is a question
witness has more evidentiary of fact which requires appraisal and re-evaluation of the evidence presented by
weight over the discretion of the parties. Such procedure is beyond the court’s dominion because factual findings of
 University of the Philippines College of Law

court with due regard on
evidentiary matters presented –
NO, courts are not bound by
expert testimonies.
 Experts are presented to enlighten, and not confuse, the courts. For this reason, this
 Courts are not bound by expert testimonies. They may place whatever weight
 The validity of the deed of sale should, therefore, be recognized, the only opposition
 In this connection, we have to say that petitioner’s objection to the admission in
trial courts, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals are binding on the
Supreme Court. However, this rule admits certain exceptions found under the 1997
revised Rules of Civil Procedure, as follows:
o (1) when the findings of a trial court are grounded entirely on
speculation, surmises or conjectures;
o (2) when a lower courts inference from its factual findings is manifestly
mistaken, absurd or impossible;
o (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion in the appreciation of facts;
o (4) when the findings of the appellate court go beyond the issues of the
case, run contrary to the admissions of the parties to the case, or fail to
notice certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, will justify a
different conclusion;
o (5) when there is a misappreciation of facts;
o (6) when the findings of fact are conclusions without mention of the
specific evidence on which they are based, are premised on the absence of
evidence, or are contradicted by evidence on record.
Court does not fault the lower court for disregarding, in its exasperation, the
conflicting testimonies of the handwriting experts on record.
they choose upon such testimonies in accordance with the facts of the case. The
relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province
of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his
actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which
he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he
testifies, and any other matters which serve to illuminate his statements. The
problem of evaluation of expert testimony is left to the sound discretion of the trial
court whose ruling thereupon is not reviewable in the absence of an abuse of
discretion.
thereto being the alleged forgery of Ilao’s signature which was not satisfactorily
demonstrated. There is no doubt that the deed of sale was duly acknowledged before
a notary public and it enjoys presumption of regularity and carries the evidentiary
weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.
evidence of the testimony of the notary public who supposedly notarized the deed
of sale taken in another case in which petitioners were not parties is persuasive.
Such testimony does not qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule under Sec. 47,
Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
o Sec. 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given at a former case
or proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and
subject matter, may be given in evidence against the adverse party who
had the opportunity to cross-examine him.

RULING

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is hereby DENIED. Costs against petitioners.

SEPARATE OPINIONS

NOTES