ROMEO PALOMA, PETITIONER, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EDUARDO POBLACION, APOLINARIA PALOMA VDA. DE VILLANUEVA, RENATO PANIZALES, JONATHAN TICAR, VICENTE PALOMA AND THE N…

Paloma versus Court of Appeals

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Romeo Paloma against the Court of Appeals and the private respondents who occupied a parcel of land registered in his name. Paloma had filed complaints for recovery of possession, known as accion publiciana, before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City. The private respondents resisted on the ground that his title rested on a forged deed of sale, and they asked the trial court to send the disputed signature to the National Bureau of Investigation for handwriting examination. The case matters because it teaches when a procedural question becomes moot and academic, and it draws a sharp line between an interlocutory order on evidence and the merits of the main case.

Procedural History

Romeo Paloma filed several complaints for accion publiciana before the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 27, against Eduardo Poblacion, Narina Paloma Vda. de Villanueva, Renato Panizales, and Jonathan Ticar. The cases were consolidated and jointly heard. The private respondents moved to refer the questioned deed of sale to the National Bureau of Investigation for expert handwriting examination, and the trial court granted the motion. Paloma's motion for reconsideration was denied.

Paloma then filed a special civil action for certiorari with a prayer for preliminary injunction before the Court of Appeals, arguing that the trial court gravely abused its discretion. The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for lack of merit and later denied his motion for reconsideration. Paloma came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Meanwhile, the trial court rendered a decision in the accion publiciana cases declaring the deed of sale valid and effective, and holding that the signatures in the deed of quitclaim were of doubtful authenticity. That decision was elevated by appeal to the Court of Appeals and was pending there when the Supreme Court resolved this petition.

Facts

Romeo Paloma claimed to be the absolute and registered owner of a parcel of land covered by a transfer certificate of title in Iloilo. He alleged that the private respondents had occupied the property on his mere tolerance, and that his repeated demands that they vacate fell on deaf ears. He said he intended to develop and subdivide the land into residential lots for sale.

The private respondents answered that the title was obtained through a falsified or forged deed of sale dated September 15, 1965, allegedly executed by Mercedes Padernilla, the mother of Paloma and of two of the private respondents. They claimed that her signatures on that document were forgeries.

To prove the forgery, the private respondents moved that the questioned deed be referred to the National Bureau of Investigation for handwriting examination, using as specimen the signatures of Mercedes Padernilla appearing in the pleadings of an earlier civil case. The trial court granted the motion. Paloma objected that the specimen signatures had not first been shown to be genuine, and he brought the matter to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's order referring the disputed signature to the National Bureau of Investigation for handwriting examination without first establishing the genuineness and due execution of the specimen signatures.
• Whether or not the controversy before the appellate court had become moot and academic by reason of the trial court's later decision upholding the validity and authenticity of the questioned deed of sale.

Applicable Provisions

Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides:

Section 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, 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.

This is the provision Paloma invoked, arguing that the specimen signatures were neither admitted as genuine by him nor proved genuine to the satisfaction of the judge before the referral was ordered.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court did not reach the merits. It held that the question of whether the trial court gravely abused its discretion in granting the motion for handwriting examination had become moot and academic. The Court reasoned that where an issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and resolving it would be of no practical use or value.

The Court explained that the appellate court had been asked merely to determine whether the trial court committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the motion. The genuineness and due execution of the questioned deed of sale is a distinct matter. The issue of the genuineness of the signature on that deed is properly the subject of the private respondents' appeal of the trial court's decision before the Court of Appeals.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that the controversy had been overtaken by the trial court's decision of March 29, 1999, which declared the deed of sale valid and effective and found the signatures in the deed of quitclaim of doubtful authenticity. That decision, however, was not yet final, having been elevated on appeal. The Court thus treated the procedural question as spent, leaving the merits of forgery to the pending appeal.

Doctrine

First, where an issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and its resolution is of no practical use or value. Courts will not decide a question that no longer has any real consequence to the parties.

Second, an interlocutory order on the taking of evidence, such as an order referring a disputed signature to the National Bureau of Investigation for handwriting examination, is distinct from the merits of the principal case. The genuineness and due execution of the deed of sale is a separate matter to be resolved in the main action, not in a special civil action for certiorari directed at the evidentiary order.

Third, under Section 22 of Rule 132, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved by comparison 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. This is the standard a party must meet when offering specimen signatures for comparison.

Disposition

The petition was denied for being moot, and the Court made no pronouncement as to costs.

Remember This

Memorize this line: where the issue has become moot and academic, there is no justiciable controversy, and its resolution is of no practical use or value. Examiners use this case to test the mootness doctrine and to distinguish an interlocutory evidentiary order from the merits of the principal action.