PAULA DIRILO, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. INOCENCIO ROPERES ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLANTS.

Dirilo versus Roperes

The Case

This is an action for the recovery of ownership and possession of a small coconut plantation in the Province of Tayabas, together with the fruits taken from it since 1905. Paula Dirilo, suing in her own right and as representative of her minor brothers and sisters, claims the land as heirs of their deceased father, Jose Dirilo. The defendants, led by Marciana Dirilo, are in possession and resist the claim. The case matters to a reviewee for two reasons: it shows how a court weighs a private document of sale against a bare claim of verbal purchase, and it sets the standard for when a witness may testify as an expert on the genuineness of a signature. It also illustrates the duty of a possessor in bad faith to account for the fruits of the land.

Procedural History

The case was tried in the court below, which found that the plaintiff and her minor brothers and sisters were the owners pro indiviso of the plantation and entitled to its possession, together with a reasonable amount, fixed at 100 pesos, for its use and occupation. The defendants appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Trent, affirmed the judgment appealed from in all of its parts, with costs against the appellants.

Facts

Both parties trace their title to the same person, Agata Botocave. The plaintiffs claim that their deceased father, Jose Dirilo, purchased the land from Agata Botocave on January 15, 1895, and they presented a private document evidencing that purchase. The defendant Marciana Dirilo claims that she bought the same property from the same vendor in 1894, but she presented no document at all, asserting that her contract was verbal only.

The defendants attacked the plaintiffs' private document as false, specifically alleging that the signature of Felis Dirilo, one of the subscribing witnesses, was not genuine. They called one Stevers, a district auditor in the government service, who testified to certain peculiarities in the signatures and opined that the signature of Felis Dirilo was written by the same person who wrote the body of the document. It was admitted that the document was not in the handwriting of Felis Dirilo. The sons of the vendor, who signed the document when it was executed, testified positively that it was executed in due form and that all the signatures were genuine.

Jose Dirilo purchased the land in 1895 and immediately entered into possession. He remained in possession until 1902, when he mortgaged the land to Pablo Roses and left Pagbilao, where the land is located, never to return. Pablo Roses held possession about a year and then mortgaged it to one Jose Dirilo, a cousin of the deceased father of the plaintiffs, who remained in possession until about 1905. At that point the defendant Marciana Dirilo, a sister of the deceased father of the plaintiffs, claimed that the land belonged to the undivided estate of their parents and on that claim secured possession. At trial, however, she claimed instead to have purchased the property from Agata Botocave. About 1909, after the death of Jose Dirilo, his children returned to Pagbilao, found the defendants in possession, and demanded the return of the land, which the defendants refused.

Issues

• Whether or not the plaintiffs established their ownership of the land by the private document of sale executed in 1895 in favor of their father.
• Whether or not the witness Stevers was competent to testify as an expert on the genuineness of the signature of Felis Dirilo.
• Whether or not the defendants, having refused to return the land upon demand, must account for its products since that demand.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote any statutory provision. It applies the settled rule on the competence of expert witnesses, which the Court states in its own words:

In order to render one a competent witness as an expert to the genuineness of a signature, he must have been educated in the business about which he testifies or he must have acquired actual skill and knowledge of the subject.

This rule governs the second issue, because the defendants' attack on the private document rested entirely on the testimony of a witness who did not meet this standard.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court upheld the plaintiffs' private document. The Court noted that although the document was not in the handwriting of Felis Dirilo, it did not follow that his signature was a forgery. The witness Stevers apparently failed to notice that the first name is spelled F-e-l-i-x in the body of the document but F-e-l-i-s in the signature, and the Court observed that it is hardly probable that a person who wrote the document and signed the name would make that mistake in spelling. More importantly, the sons of the vendor, who signed the document at the time of execution, testified positively that it was executed in due form and that all the signatures were genuine.

On the second issue, the Court held that Stevers did not qualify as a handwriting expert. He admitted that he had made no special study of the science of chirography and that he was not skilled in the art. The Court laid down the standard in these words:

It is not enough that he has sometimes compared signatures of other persons when disagreements as to their genuineness had arisen in the course of business.

On the third issue, the Court found that the defendants well knew the land belonged to the heirs of the deceased Jose Dirilo and that they had no interest in it whatever. They also knew that the products of the small hacienda had long before 1909 fully paid the amount for which it was originally mortgaged. The Court therefore held that they could not be considered possessors in good faith since demand was made upon them for the return of the land, and that they must account for the products since that year. The amount fixed by the trial court at 100 pesos was fully supported by the evidence.

Doctrine

First, a private document of sale, attacked as false, is not overcome by the opinion of a witness who has not qualified as an expert on handwriting. To be competent as an expert on the genuineness of a signature, the witness must have been educated in the business about which he testifies or must have acquired actual skill and knowledge of the subject; occasional comparison of signatures in the course of business is not enough.

Second, a possessor who knows that the land belongs to another and who refuses to return it upon demand is a possessor in bad faith from the time of that demand, and must account for the fruits or products of the land from that time.

Disposition

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment appealed from in all of its parts, with costs against the appellants, thereby upholding the plaintiffs' ownership and possession of the plantation and their right to 100 pesos for its use and occupation.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a witness must be educated in the business or have acquired actual skill and knowledge of the subject before he may testify as an expert on a signature. Examiners use this case to test the competence of expert witnesses on handwriting and the liability of a possessor in bad faith to account for the fruits of the land from the time of demand.