Marcos vs Heirs of Navarro

(G.R. No. 198240; July 3, 2013; Villarama)

Facts:

Spouses Navarro passed away and left behind several parcels of land. They weresurvived by their daughters, Luisa
Navarro Marcos (petitioner) and Lydia NavarroGrageda, and the heirs of their only son, Andres Navarro. The heirs
of Andres arethe respondents in this case. Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are claiming
exclusiveownership of the lot based on an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property whereAndres, Sr. donated the lot
to Andres, Jr. The sisters requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit.

The PNP handwriting expert, PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez, found that Andres, Sr.’s signature on the affidavit and
the submitted standard signatures of Andres, Sr.were not written by the same person. The sisters sued the
respondents for annulment of the deed of donation.

Respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness.

RTC granted respondents’ motion and disqualified Alvarez as a witness, ruling that her supposed testimony would
be hearsay as she has no personal knowledgeof the alleged handwriting of Andres, Sr. Also, there is no need for
PO2 Alvarezto be presented, if she is to be presented as an expert witness, because her testimony is not yet
needed.

CA dismissed the sisters’ petition for certiorari.

Issue/ Held:
W/N PO2 Alvarez should be disqualified as a witness. | NO.

Ratio:
Section 21 disqualifies a witness by reason of mental incapacity or immaturity.Section 22 disqualifies a witness by
reason of marriage. Section 23 disqualifies awitness by reason of death or insanity of the adverse party. Section 24
disqualifies a witness by reason of privileged communication.

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.
As a handwriting expert of the PNP, PO2 Alvarez can surely perceive and makeknown her perception to others.
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 confused thequalification 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 opinionof an expert witness may be
received in evidence. PO2 Alvarez’s testimony would not be hearsay. Under Section 49 of Rule 130, PO2 Alvarez is
allowed to render an expert opinion. Although the word “may” in Sec. 49 of Rule 130 signifies that the use of the
opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on the part of thecourts, handwriting experts are
often offered as expert witnesses considering thetechnical nature of the procedure in examining forged
documents. RTC shouldn’t have disqualified Alvarez as a witness. She has the qualifications and none of the
disqualifications of a witness under the Rules.

The analysis of the signature in the deed of donation executed by the late Andres,Sr. is crucial to the resolution of
the case.