13. VIRGILIO DYCOCO vs. ADELAIDA ORINA, G.R. No.

184843, July 30, 2010

Facts:
On October 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. The REM was a
security for the P250,000 loan he obtained from Orina. Dycoco failed to pay the said loan, and
as a result, Orina extrajudicially foreclosed the REM. There was no redemption made within the
reglementary period, hence the title was transferred to Orina.

Dycoco’s attorneys-in-fact-brothers-in-law Cristino, Jose and Adolfo, all surnamed Grafilo, who
occupy the property covered by the REM as caretakers/tenants, did not turn-over its possession
to Orina. 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 documents, purporting that Dycoco was
in the United States, 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.

Issue:
Whether or not the photocopy of the REM can be admitted as evidence

Ruling:
No. The acknowledgment portion was incomplete. It did not state the name of the person who
personally appeared before the notary public. Since the acknowledgment 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, Section 20 to which the
respondent Orina did not comply.

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.

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 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. 5 sets the guidelines when original
document was not available but still they were not able to comply.