This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2006-06-20 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| It is true that the opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court,[26] the expert's function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form its own opinion.[27] Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them. But resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.[28] As held in Estacio v. Jaranilla,[29] to wit: It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This the trial court judge can do without resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of currently existing ones. Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.[30] The courts below did exactly this. They conducted their independent examination of the signatures and concluded that the disparity of the signatures on page one (1) and page two (2) of the Deed of Sale is readily noticeable upon inspection. Moreover, the appellate court observed that a scrutiny of the documents where Fermin's specimen signatures appear show that most of them do not bear his printed name but Fermin consistently signed his name in full and never in the abbreviated style as the one on page one (1) of the Deed of Sale. | |||||
|
2005-01-19 |
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, J. |
||||
| Nothing is more entrenched than the rule that where, as here, the findings of fact of the trial court are affirmed by the Court of Appeals, the same are final and conclusive upon this Court.[39] The inevitable conclusion which may be drawn from the settled fact that respondents are tenants is that they are duly entitled to the right of redemption under Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844,[40] as amended by Republic Act No. 6389,[41] which provide:"SEC. 12. Lessee's right of Redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale. | |||||