CASE NO.
01
(QUALIFICATIONS OF A WITNESS)
MARCOS V. HEIRS OF NAVARRO, JR., G.R. NO. 198240, [JULY 3, 2013], 713 PHIL 462-471
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over a 108.3997-hectare lot in Masbate left by the deceased spouses Andres
Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-Navarro. The petitioner, Luisa Navarro Marcos, and her sister
discovered that the respondents (heirs of Andres Navarro, Jr.) were claiming exclusive ownership of the
land based on a 1954 "Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property," which purportedly showed Andres, Sr.
donating the land to his son, Andres, Jr..
Suspecting the affidavit was a forgery, the petitioner requested a handwriting examination from the
Philippine National Police (PNP). PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez, a PNP handwriting expert, concluded that the
signature of Andres, Sr. on the affidavit was not genuine when compared to standard signatures.
Consequently, the petitioner sued the respondents for the annulment of the deed of donation.
The respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness, arguing that the handwriting examination
was unauthorized by the court and that her testimony would be hearsay, useless, and irrelevant. The
Regional Trial Court (RTC) granted the motion and disqualified her, ruling that she had no personal
knowledge of the handwriting and that her testimony was not yet needed. The Court of Appeals (CA)
eventually dismissed the petitioner’s challenge to this disqualification on the ground that the dismissal of
the main civil case had rendered the issue moot.
ISSUE
Whether or not PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez is qualified to testify as a witness under the Rules of Court, despite
the respondents' claim that her testimony constitutes hearsay and that she lacked personal knowledge of
the deceased's handwriting.
RULING
Yes, PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez is a qualified witness.
The Supreme Court held that a witness is deemed qualified if they possess all the qualifications and none
of the disqualifications provided in the Rules of Court. Under Section 20, Rule 130, all persons who can
perceive and make known their perception to others may be witnesses. The Court noted that:
• Specific Disqualifications: The Rules provide specific grounds for disqualification, such as mental
incapacity, immaturity, marriage, death or insanity of an adverse party, or privileged
communication (Sections 21 to 24, Rule 130). PO2 Alvarez possessed none of these
disqualifications.
• Perception and Communication: As a PNP handwriting expert, PO2 Alvarez can perceive the
characteristics of handwriting and make her perceptions known to the court.
• Qualification vs. Credibility: The RTC erred by confusing the qualification of a witness with the
credibility and weight of their testimony. While the court has the discretion to determine the value
of an expert's opinion, it cannot prevent the witness from testifying if they are otherwise qualified
under the Rules.
• Expert Witness Exception: The RTC’s ruling that the testimony was hearsay was incorrect. Under
Section 49, Rule 130, the opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill,
experience, or training is admissible. Handwriting experts are frequently offered as expert
witnesses because the technical nature of examining forged documents often escapes the notice
of an unpracticed observer.
The Supreme Court set aside the CA and RTC orders, thereby denying the motion to disqualify PO2 Alvarez
and allowing her to testify.