Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Consequently, Limtuaco revived its petition for the extrajudicial sale of the
land. In the Notice of Public Auction dated 21 February 1991, the Provincial
Sheriff of Tarlac reset the public auction on 26 March 1991.
On 15 March 1991, Narciso and Virgilio Masiclat filed with-the RTC of
Quezon City a complaint for annulment of mortgage and damages with
prayer for the issuance of writ of preliminary injunction and temporary
restraining order. Petitioner Roberto Masiclat was impleaded as plaintiff in
the case as a real party-in-interest, having bought from his parents the
mortgaged land in December 1981.
On 15 April 1991, the RTC granted the application for writ of preliminary
injunction. On 14 June 1991, a writ of preliminary injunction was issued
enjoining the auction sale of the land.
In a Decision dated 7 June 1999, the RTC dismissed the complaint. The
dispositive portion[10] states:
WHEREFORE, the foregoing premises considered, the court orders as
follows:
The issue is whether or not the Court can take cognizance of this case as an
exception to Rule 45 that only questions of law may be raised.
Petitioners insist that this case falls under the recognized exceptions
established by jurisprudence under Rule 45 that: (1) the findings of facts are '
premised on the absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record; (2) the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or impossible;
and (3) the CA manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by
the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a different
conclusion.
Petitioners argue that Masiclat already testified during trial that he has no
unsettled obligations with Limtuaco. Also, Juliet Presilla (Presilla), the
employee who prepared the subsidiary ledgers which were presented by
Limtuaco during trial to be the summary of accountabilities of Masiclat, was
not presented as a witness. Neither was Presilla's deposition taken to attest
the certainty and correctness of Masiclat's accountabilities. Thus, the ledgers
are incompetent and inadmissible in evidence for lack of authentication.
The petition lacks merit.
Petitioners appealed with the CA. On 27 July 2004, the CA denied the appeal
for lack of merit. The dispositive portion[11] states;
At the outset, while only questions of law may be raised in a petition for
review on certiorari under Rule 45, the rule admits of certain exceptions: (1)
when the findings are grounded entirely on speculations, surmises, or
conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd, or
impossible; (3) when there is a grave abuse of discretion; (4) when the
judgment is based on misappreciation of facts; (5) when the findings of fact
are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings, the same are contrary to the
admissions of both appellant and appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary
to those of the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without
citation of specific evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set
forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not
disputed by the respondent; and (10) when the findings of fact are premised
on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on
record.[12]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED for lack of merit and the appealed
decision dated June 7,1999 is AFFIRMED in toto.
SO ORDERED.
Petitioners submit that the findings of facts of the CA are premised on the
absence or inadmissibility of evidence and that the CA manifestly overlooked
certain relevant facts. These claims deserve scant consideration. Both the
trial and appellate courts concluded that Limtuaco presented ample
documentation, i.e., Statement of Accountability as of 17 November 1989;
subsidiary ledgers; and other accounting records, to support its claim that
SO ORDERED.
were not able to sufficiently prove that the present case falls under any of the
exceptions laid down by jurisprudence for this Court to take cognizance of a
case under Rule 45 where only questions of law may be raised.
SO ORDERED.
xxx
As plaintiffs before the trial court, xxx, appellants are the parties charged with
the burden of proof to establish their cause by a preponderance of evidence,
i.e., that which, as a whole, outweighs that adduced by the adverse party.
Given the fact that the only evidence they adduced to negate monetary
liability is the uncorroborated testimony of appellant Virgilio Masiclat, we find
appellants' harping on the supposed improbabilities of appellee corporation
evidence to be, at the very least, misguided and misplaced,
xxx
Appellants next call our attention to the disparity between the P30.989.18
demanded by appellee corporation in its letter dated January 18, 1989 and
the P209,217.05 subsequently demanded in its letter dated December 13,
1989. That said discrepancy is, however, more apparent than real is evident
from Lydia Galang's (Limtuaco's Chief Accountant) testimony that the first
amount demanded by appellee corporation was only based on a preliminary
audit, xxx said preliminary audit was necessitated by the fact that appellee
had no access to its company records during the seven-month long strike
staged by its employees. Be that as it may, we find that the trial court
correctly deducted from the P209.217.05 demanded by appellee corporation
the sum of P117,116.17 which, according to the latter's own statement of
account dated November 17. 1989, represented unredeemed bounced
checks already turned over by appellant Virgilio Masiclat and amounts due
from its direct customer.
As for the authenticity of appellee corporation's subsidiary ledgers, suffice it
to say that the doubts raised by appellants regarding the same are, on the
whole, insufficient to warrant their rejection. Like fraud, forgery cannot be
expediently presumed. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing
evidence and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same. This is
particularly true in the case at bench where the documents impugned were,
in the very first place, produced at appellants' own instance. [13]
We agree with the CA's observations and find no reversible error. Petitioners