Gomez v Gomez-Samson

- Consuelo (3 lots, Marikina 2x & Pasig) died Nov 6 ’79

- Siblings Ariston Sr (Rita, Jesus, Ariston Jr), Angel (Augusto)
o Civil Case 36089: Augusto claims Rita & Jesus fraudulently made deeds of donation IV & forged
Consuelo’s sig on Apr 21 ’79 & prays for nullification.
o Civil Case 36090: Aug claims R&J did the same for: 75 shs of V-Tri Realty, 11,853 shs of FPH, jewelry
deposited in PCI Bank, ’78 Benz and ’79 Toyota Corona sedans, & P200k placements w/ BA Finance Corp.
 Defendants in both (including Reg of Deeds of Pasig/Marikina/Rizal) contest, saying July 2 ’79
already submitted which retroacts to Apr 20.
- After consolidation, RTC dismissed complaints. CA affirmed & MR denied.

SC:

1. Evidence of Petitioner
a. Testimony Zenaida Torres (Document examiner for NBI)
i. Agreed that signatures were Consuelos, but opined that docs 401 & 402 were not prepared in
one continuous sitting since horizontal (tho not the vertical) lines had variances horizontally.
ii. The typed “Consuelo C. Gomez” was after the written sig since the “o” in the handwritten
touches the “n” in the typed, in Doc 401 (but not 402)
iii. SC:
1. No specialized studies on questioned docs, not passed chemist boards, no thesis on
work on the subject matter.
2. Never seen the typewriter or even tried to get hold of one.
3. Admitted that if paper roller was loose, could have horizontal variance (Wilson Harrison
book), and that if one wanted to print on top of, would be careful re: horizontal, which
is easy to see.
4. Enlarged photos she took admittedly without bromide or typewritten pitch measure will
distort image.
5. Change of theory: at first forged, now typed on top?
b. Positive Evidence (Torres: IT IS SIG) is stronger than negative (Cruz: neither here nor there)
i. SC: while true generally, the reason is because the witness who testifies to a negative may
have forgotten what occurred, while it is impossible to remember what never existed.
ii. However, EXPERT witnesses who examine docs & object evidence, are highly improbable to
forget their examination. Thus, while faulty memory may be reason for negative testimony,
likely not for experts. Thus, positive evidence with expert witness not necessarily inherent
advantage of negative, it is THE PROCESS of how the experts got to their conclusions that must
be examined & considered.
iii. Cruz’ process is better.
c. Torres was court appointed, Cruz designated only by Resps
i. SC: The relative weight & sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the
TC to decide, considering his ability & character of witness, his actions on the stand, & the
weight & process by which he supports his opinion, his possible biases, if he is paid, and any
other matters.
ii. Thus, the fact that he was designated & perhaps paid was weighed by the court, who still
believed him. TC in better position to observe demeanor, and since no evidence of abuse of
discretion, finding must be given great respect & not reviewable.
d. Circumstantial evidence: deeds are letter and not legal size and singlespaced, Doc 401 donated to 2
donees in the same, Doc 402 to 3, Bodega in 402 not mentioned by Consuelo tho she was treasurer of V-
 TRI, signature appears almost the same space, both typed with the same typewriter, lack of extra copies,
small margins,
i. SC: None of this affects validity of the deed nor connotes foul play or fraud.
ii. The only ones that are concerning are lack of extra copies, small margins, bodega not owned by
conseulo, but this cannot overturn good faith, which is always presumed. He who alleges bad
faith has the burden to prove.
1. Small margins, while sloppy, not malicious, as resps claim did for brevity.
2. Stolen handbag with docs arouses some suspicion but… TC already examined and found
credible. Unless substantial facts and circumstances have been overlooked or
misunderstood by the TC, SC will sustain.
iii. All petitioner has done is instill doubt, which in criminal is enough, but in civil, needs a
preponderance of evidence. If scales are equipoise, SC shall rule for defendants, as long as no
preponderance of evidence of evidence. EVEN IF petitioner’s evidence is stronger, as long as it
doesn’t establish preponderance, it is insufficient.
e. Payment of donor tax after Consuelos death
i. SC: bans does not prove dum! Even if donor tax paid after death, so what re: intercalated
signature?
ii. Also, failed to prove dum. Check was prepared during life, just allegedly delivered perhaps after
death.
iii. Failed to rebut all the tax payments of Consuelo during her lifetime
2. Evidence of Respondent
a. Testimony Francisco Cruz (Chief of Document Examination of PCINP Crime lab)
i. Identified typewriter as “elite typewriter” (12 letters in 1 inch)
ii. Color tone is the same althroughout
iii. Horizontal SPACING issue, not alignment, because of variable spacer
iv. Left margins aligned, typed in one sitting
v. All evidenced by blown up pics
vi. NO INTERSECTIONS, just touch. Even if intersect, Greasy ink of type not enough since (1) can use
swelling alkaline ink, (2) ribbon not impart enough grease.
b. Testimony Notary Public Jose Sebastian
i. Pets say no cred since dismissed from service in Garciano v Sebastian where he lied to mislead
investigator.
ii. SC: Jose was initially pet’s witness, cannot dismiss own since estopped. (S12 Rule 132) No
declaration by pets that Jose is an unwilling/hostile witness, or adverse party, or officer of corp
or partner of adverse party. EVEN IF so declared, impeach only allowed by showing of
prior/inconsistent statements AND NOT EVIDENCE OF BAD CHARACTER. This dismissal from
judge cannot be used.
iii. In fact, prior criminal conviction cannot suffice to discredit a witness – his testimony must be
assayed & scrutinized in the same way as others for relevance/credibility [Cordial v People]. If
criminals can be trusted, Jose never even was convicted of a crime, just admin sanction 11 years
after testimony.
iv. Plus his testimony is supported by the records of the notarial registry.
c. Testimony of Respondents themselves