UP Law F2021 239 Dycoco v Orina

Evidence Rule 132, Sec. 20; Rule 130, Sec. 5; 2010 Carpio Morales
Public Act No. 2103, Sec. 2

SUMMARY
Dycoco represented by his attorneys-in-fact by virtue of a duly executed SPA in Illinois, contested the
authenticity of Real Estate Mortgage (REM) he allegedly executed in favor of Orina. Dycoco’s party presented
several documents, including his proof of employment, US passport and others, averring that as resident
physician in the United Sates, he could not have signed nor executed the REM. Orina presented a photocopy
of the REM with incomplete acknowledgement. RTC dismissed the complaint, saying they could not attribute
probative value to the documents offered as evidence because Dycoco failed to stand as witness to
authenticate the same. CA upheld RTC. SC reversed. SC held that Dycoco’s SPA complied with Public Act No.
2103 which effectively dispenses with the requirement of presenting him on the witness stand. The SC further
held that the REM is not a public document since the acknowledgment was incomplete, hence respondent
should comply with requirement of proof for private documents. Respondent Orina failed to do this.

FACTS

 Oct.9, 2005 – Virgilio Dycoco allegedly executed "Real Estate Mortgage with Special Power to Sell
Mortgaged Property without Judicial Proceedings" (REM) in favor of respondent Adelaida Orina;
 The REM covered the property of Dycoco in Sta. Cruz Manila and inhabited1 by his brothers-in-law
Grafilo’s.2;
 The REM was a security for the P250,000 loan he obtained from Orina;
 He failed to pay the said loan. Orina extrajudicailly foreclosed the REM. There was no redemption
made within the reglementary period, hence the title was transferred to Orina;
 The Grafilo’s refused to turn over the property. Orina filed a complaint for ejectment;
 Dycoco, represented by the Grafilo’s thru a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) duly executed, notarized
and certified in Illinois, filed for a complaint for annulment of the REM claiming that Dycoco’s signature
was forged;
 They presented several documents3, purporting that Dycoco was in the US, and never could have
signed nor executed the REM;
 Orina presented a photocopy of the REM as evidence. It was also noted that the acknowledgment was
not complete: the name of the person who personally appeared before the notary public was not
stated;
 RTC dismissed the Dycoco’s complaint: (complainant) failed to establish that the defendant Orina, knew
it was not Virgilio Dycoco who mortgaged the property;
 CA affirmed the RTC decision: since Dycoco was not presented on the witness stand to establish the
genuineness, due execution and contents of the documentary evidence, no probative value can be ascribed
thereto;
 Hence this petition for review before the SC.

RATIO

W/N Dycoco must be presented as witness to ascribe probative value to documentary evidence
presented
No.

The SC stated that the SPA executed abroad complied with the requirements of Public Act No. 21034 Sec. 25
which effectively dispenses with the requirement of presenting him on the witness stand. By deduction (it

1
It was established that Dycoco was in the US as practicing physician in the course of the proceeding
2
First names were Cristino, Jose and Adolfo
3
proof of his employment, U.S. Passport, personal checks
4
An Act Providing For the Acknowledgement and Authentication of Instruments and Documents Without the Philippine Islands
5
Section 2. An instrument or document acknowledged and authenticated in a foreign country shall be considered authentic if the
acknowledgment and authentication are made in accordance with the following requirements:
 was not directly stated in the facts but deduce thru the emphasis in Sec.2) the same was executed before a
notary and the certificate of the notary was authenticated by an ambassador, minister, secretary of
legation, chargé d’affaires , consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the United States, acting within
the country or place consular agent of the United States, acting within the country or place to which
he is accredited.

Additionally, the SC said that the respondents Comment/Opposition to formal offer of evidence of Dycoco’s
passport as “immaterial, irrelevant and impertinent” was virtually an admission already of authenticity of
the entries in the passport.

W/N photocopy of the REM can be admitted as evidence

No.

1. The acknowledgment portion was incomplete; it did not state the name of the person who
personally appeared before the notary public. Since the acknowledgement was defective, it loses its
public character. The SC then stated that since it is not a public document, it is subject to
requirement of proof for private documents under Rule 132, Sec. 206 to which the respondent Orina
did not comply.
2. It was merely photocopy. The SC held that it is axiomatic that when the genuineness of signatures
on a document is sought to be proved or disproved (Item#1) through comparison of standard
signatures with the questioned signature, the original thereof must be presented. They were not
able to present the original. Alternatively, Rule 130, Sec. 57 sets the guidelines when original
document was not available but still they were not able to comply.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated November 29,
2007 is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Let a NEW judgment be entered declaring null and void the document entitled "Real Estate Mortgage
with Special Power to Sell Mortgaged Property without Judicial Proceedings" purportedly signed by Virgilio
Dycoco in favor of Adelaida Orina. Let a copy of this Decision be furnished the Register of Deeds of Manila for
proper disposition.
SO ORDERED.

(a) The acknowledgment shall be made before (1) an ambassador, minister, secretary of legation, chargé d’affaires, consul, vice-consul,
or consular agent of the United States, acting within the country or place to which he is accredited, or (2) a notary public or officer
duly authorized by law of the country to take acknowledgments of instruments or documents in the place where the act is done.
(b) The person taking the acknowledgment shall certify that the person acknowledging the instrument or document is known to him, and
that he is the same person who executed it, and acknowledged that the same is his free act and deed. The certificate shall be under
his official seal, if he is by law required to keep a seal, and if not, his certificate shall so state. In case the acknowledgment is made
before a notary public or an officer mentioned in subdivision (2) of the preceding paragraph, the certificate of the notary public or
the officer taking the acknowledgment shall be authenticated by an ambassador, minister, secretary of legation, chargé d’affaires,
consul, vice-consul, or consular agent of the United States, acting within the country or place consular agent of the United States,
acting within the country or place to which he is accredited. The officer making the authentication shall certify under his official seal
that the person who took the acknowledgment was at the time duly authorized to act as notary public or that he was duly exercising
the functions of the office by virtue of which he assumed to act, and that as such he had authority under the law to take
acknowledgment of instruments or documents in the place where the acknowledgment was taken, and that his signature and seal, if
any, are genuine.
6
Section 20. Proof of private document. — 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. Any other private document need only be identified as that which it is claimed to be.
7
SEC. 5. When original document is unavailable. — When the original document has been lost or destroyed, or cannot be produced in
court, the offeror, upon proof of its execution or existence and the cause of the unavailability without bad faith on his part, may prove
its contents by a copy, or by a recital of its contents in some authentic document, or by the testimony of witnesses in the order stated.