Case Digest: Marcos vs. Heirs of Navarro, Jr., GR No. 198240, July 3, 2013

Evidence | Rule 130

Villarama, Jr., J.

Petitioner: Luisa Navarro Marcos

Respondent: The Heirs of the late Dr. Andres Navarro, Jr., namely:

• Nonita Navarro, 

• Francisca Navarro Malapitan, 

• Soledad Navarro Brochler, 

• Nonita Barrun Navarro, Jr., 

• Imelda Navarro, 

• Andres Navarro III, 

• Milagros Navarro Yap, 

• Pilar Navarro, 

• Teresa Navarro-Tabita, and

• Lourdes Barrun-Rejuso

Recit Ver:

RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness. She has the qualifications of witness and possess none of the disqualifications under the Rules. The Rules allow the opinion of an expert witness to be received as evidence. 

Facts:

• Spouses Andres Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-Navarro passed away in 1958 and 1993, respectively.

• They left behind several properties, including a 108.3997-hectare lot in Cayabon, Milagros, Masbate.

• The spouses were survived by daughters Luisa Navarro Marcos (petitioner) and Lydia Navarro Grageda, and the heirs of their son, Andres Navarro, Jr. (respondents).

• Petitioner and Lydia discovered that respondents were claiming exclusive ownership of the subject lot.

• Respondents based their claim on an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property dated May 19, 1954, in which Andres, Sr. allegedly donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr.

• The sisters believed the affidavit was a forgery and requested a handwriting examination through Assistant Fiscal Andres Marcos.

• PNP handwriting expert PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez found that the signature on the affidavit did not match Andres, Sr.'s known signature.

• The sisters filed a case for annulment of the deed of donation.

• Respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness, arguing that the RTC did not authorize the handwriting examination and that presenting Alvarez would violate their right to due process.

RTC-Masbate: Granted the motion on August 19, 2004, disqualifying PO2 Alvarez on grounds of hearsay and irrelevance.

CA: 

• Dismissed the sisters’ petition for certiorari, stating that the dismissal of civil case had mooted the issue of Alvarez’s disqualification.

• Denied their motion for reconsideration, and refused to take judicial notice of another CA Division’s decision reinstating the civil case.

Issue: Whether the CA erred in not ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness.

Held: 

Petitioner argues that the CA erred in refusing to reconsider the assailed decision in light of the reinstatement of Civil Case No. 5215. Petitioner adds that the CA erred in not ruling that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness. They stress that PO2 Alvarez will be presented as an expert witness to render an opinion on whether the disputed handwriting was indeed made by Andres, Sr. or whether it is a forgery. 

In their comment, respondents counter that the CA properly disqualified PO2 Alvarez. They also agreed with the CA that her disqualification was mooted by the dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215.

We find in favor of petitioner.

The CA ruling that the dismissal of Civil Case No. 5215 has mooted the issue of PO2 Alvarez’s disqualification as a witness can no longer be justified. Hence, we reverse the CA ruling. While we agree with the CA in considering the RTC’s Orders which dismissed Civil Case No. 5215, we are unable to agree with its refusal to take judicial notice of the Decision of another CA Division which reinstated Civil Case No. 5215. Subsequent proceedings were even held in the reinstated Civil Case No. 5215 per Orders issued by the RTC which were already submitted to the CA. That Civil Case No. 5215 was reinstated is a fact that cannot be ignored.

We also agree with petitioner that the RTC committed grave abuse of discretion in disqualifying PO2 Alvarez as a witness. Grave abuse of discretion defies exact definition, but it generally refers to capricious or whimsical exercise of judgment as is equivalent to lack of jurisdiction. The abuse of discretion must be patent and gross as to amount to an evasion of a positive duty or a virtual refusal to perform a duty enjoined by law, or to act at all in contemplation of law, as where the power is exercised in an arbitrary and despotic manner by reason of passion and hostility. Grave abuse of discretion arises when a lower court or tribunal violates the Constitution or grossly disregards the law or existing jurisprudence.

In Armed Forces of the Philippines Retirement and Separation Benefits System v. Republic of the Philippines, we said that a witness must only possess all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. Section 20, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence provides:

SEC. 20. Witnesses; their qualifications.–Except as provided in the next succeeding section, all persons who can perceive, and perceiving, can make known their perception to others, may be witnesses.

Religious or political belief, interest in the outcome of the case, or conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, shall not be a ground for disqualification.

Specific rules of witness disqualification are provided under Sections 21 to 24, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence. 

• Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity. 

• Section 22 disqualifies a witness by reason of marriage. 

• Section 23 disqualifies a witness by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party.

•  Section 24 disqualifies a witness by reason of privileged communication.

In Cavili v. Judge Florendo, we have held that the specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein. We said:

The generosity with which the Rule allows people to testify is apparent. Interest in the outcome of a case, conviction of a crime unless otherwise provided by law, and religious belief are not grounds for disqualification.

Sections 19 and 20 of Rule 130 provide for specific disqualifications. Section 19 disqualifies those who are mentally incapacitated and children whose tender age or immaturity renders them incapable of being witnesses. Section 20 provides for disqualification based on conflicts of interest or on relationship. Section 21 provides for disqualification based on privileged communications. Section 15 of Rule 132 may not be a rule on disqualification of witnesses but it states the grounds when a witness may be impeached by the party against whom he was called.

There is no provision of the Rules disqualifying parties declared in default from taking the witness stand for non-disqualified parties. The law does not provide default as an exception. The specific enumeration of disqualified witnesses excludes the operation of causes of disability other than those mentioned in the Rules. It is a maxim of recognized utility and merit in the construction of statutes that an express exception, exemption, or saving clause excludes other exceptions. x x x As a general rule, where there are express exceptions these comprise the only limitations on the operation of a statute and no other exception will be implied. x x x The Rules should not be interpreted to include an exception not embodied therein.   

As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and make known her perception to others. We have no doubt that she is qualified as a witness. She cannot be disqualified as a witness since she possesses none of the disqualifications specified under the Rules. Respondents’ motion to disqualify her should have been denied by the RTC for it was not based on any of these grounds for disqualification. The RTC rather confused the qualification of the witness with the credibility and weight of her testimony.

Moreover, Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert witness may be received in evidence, to wit:

SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.–The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.

For instance, in Tamani v. Salvador, we were inclined to believe that Tamani’s signature was forged after considering the testimony of the PNP document examiner that the case involved simulated or copied forgery, such that the similarities will be superficial. We said that the value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection from an unpracticed observer.

Thus, we disagree with the RTC that PO2 Alvarez’s testimony would be hearsay. Under Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, PO2 Alvarez is allowed to render an expert opinion, as the PNP document examiner was allowed in Tamani. But the RTC already ruled at the outset that PO2 Alvarez’s testimony is hearsay even before her testimony is offered and she is called to the witness stand. Under the circumstances, the CA should have issued a corrective writ of certiorari and annulled the RTC ruling.

True, the use of the word "may" in Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of the courts. .Jurisprudence is also replete with instances wherein this Court dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to prove forgeries. However, we have also recognized that handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses considering the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents. More important, analysis of the questioned signature in the deed of donation executed by the late Andres Navarro, Sr. in crucial to the resolution of the case.

In sum, the RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness. She has the qualifications of witness and possess none of the disqualifications under the Rules. The Rules allow the opinion of an expert witness to be received as evidence. In Tamani, we used the opinion of an expert witness. The value of P02 Alvarez's expert opinion cannot be determined if P02 Alvarez is not even allowed to testify on the handwriting examination she conducted.

WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. We SET ASIDE the (1) Decision dated February 28, 2011 and Resolution dated July 29, 2011 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 92460, and (2) Orders dated August 19, 2004 and October II, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court in Civil Case No. 5215. We DENY respondents' motion to disqualify P02 Mary Grace Alvarez as a witness.

No pronouncement as to costs.

SO ORDERED.