G.R. No. 193887, March 29, 2017

G.R. No. 193887, March 29, 2017 is a decision 2017 made by the Supreme Court.
 * Transfer of Lot
 * Forgery
 * Demand Letter
 * Conjugal Property

Case Details

 * Sps. Dennis Orsolino and Melody Orsolino Vs. Violeta Frany
 * G.R. No. 193887, March 29, 2017
 * Justice Bienvenido Reyes
 * http://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/1/62974
 * xxx

Issue

 * WHETHER OR NOT THE AUTHENTICITY AND DUE EXECUTION OF THE SPA AND DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE HAVE BEEN SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED.

Info
"In imputing discrepancy in the signatures appearing in the SPA and the Deed of Sale, Spouses xxx should have conducted an examination of the signatures before the court. Evidently, the foregoing testimonial and documentary evidence adduced by Spouses xxx does not suffice the requirement needed to show the genuineness of handwriting as set forth by Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. A comparison of both the differences and similarities in the questioned signatures should have been made to satisfy the demands of evidence."

"Lastly, the Court does not agree with the RTC's finding that the sale was void because the subject property was conjugal at the time Carolina sold it to the respondent. Article 160 of the Civil Code provides that all property of the marriage is presumed to belong to the conjugal partnership, unless it be proved that it pertains exclusively to the husband or to the wife. However, the presumption under said article applies only when there is proof that the property was acquired during the marriage. Proof of acquisition during the marriage is an essential condition for the operation of the presumption in favor of the conjugal partnership."

"Lastly, the other issues raised by Spouses xxx, specifically their failure to receive the demand letter and the lack of prior conciliation proceeding before the barangay, are contradicted by the evidence on record. As found by the MeTC, the respondent tried to have a copy of the demand letter personally delivered to Spouses xxx on August 5, 2005 but the latter refused to receive the same, thus, the respondent left a copy of the demand letter in the premises. Similarly, the Certificate to File Action issued by the Punong Barangay suffices to prove that the case was referred to the barangay for possible conciliation. "

Decision
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated March 30, 2010 and Resolution dated September 1, 2010 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 108220 are AFFIRMED.