Ladignon vs CA and Dimaun

LTD: Collateral Attack

GR No. 122973

Dionisio C. Ladignon VS Court of Appeals and Luzviminda C. Dimaun

July 18, 2000

FACTS:

The case originates from a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Conveyance and Recovery of Possession and Damages against petitioner, Richart Tong, Jose Porciunla, Jr. and Litogo Company, Inc. Private respondent claimed that petitioner made her sign a petition for the reconstitution of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 240724, covering a 859.7 square meter parcel of land located in Quezon City. Said Peition was, however, dismissed on August 28, 1989 for her failure to appear at the scheduled hearing, which was superseded by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 383675 of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City.

ISSUES:

1.       Whether the signatures of plaintiff on the Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the inherited property to defendants are forged / falsified or not;

2.       Whether the failure of plaintiff to reconstitute TCT No. 240724 covering the property subject matter hereof affects the issuance of TCT No. 383675 or not;

3.       Whether defendants should be held liable for damages to plaintiff for their wanton acts of depriving plaintiff of her inherited property;

HELD:

The instant petition calls for a review of the facts of the case. On this matter, well-settled is the rule that in the exercise of the power to review, the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are conclusive and binding on this court. However, there are recognized exceptions among which is when the factual findings of the Court. However, there are recognized exceptions among which is when the factual findings of the trial court and appellate court are conflicting. The instant case falls within this exception and we are thus constrained to examine the arguments presented by petitioner.

As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale hand in its favour  the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the document should be upheld.

Tenio-Obsequio vs Court of Appeals provides that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. In imputing discrepancy in the signatures appearing in the charge forms and those appearing on the credit cards as well as in its records, AMEXCO should have conducted an examination of the signatures before the court. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it it be handwriting of ta person because he has been the person write, or has been writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been changed.

Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 proved that Certificate of Title cannot be the subject of collateral attack. Clearly, the action for nullity of conveyance is hardly the direct proceeding required by law to attack a Torrens certificate of Title.

Wherefore, the instant petition for review is hereby GRANTED.