View full case

PASTOR DE JESUS v. DE JESUS

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership and partition of a five-hectare land located in Ipil, Bulanao, Tabuk, Kalinga-Apayao. The land was inherited by the respondents from their grandparents through intestate succession. The claim of the respondents is that ownership of the property was never transferred or partitioned among the legal heirs, and as legitimate children of Fermin, they are entitled to their rightful share of the estate left by their grandfather.

The petitioner, Pastor de Jesus, who is the uncle and brother of Fermin, claims that the respondents are no longer entitled to their father's share as he has already purchased their property rights along with their sister Consolacion for a sum of P10,000.00. This claim is supported by a notarized Deed of Sale dated 13 September 1979, which has not yet been registered.

The trial court declared the Deed of Sale null and void and ordered the partition of the property among the parties. The court found sufficient evidence to warrant the declaration of the signature on the Deed of Sale as a forgery.

The decision of the trial court was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, which also found contradictions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the petitioner and his sister Consolacion, thus questioning their credibility.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether the notarized Deed of Sale is null and void.

  2. Whether the presumption of regularity of notarized documents has been rebutted.

  3. Whether the questioned signatures were forged.

  4. Whether expert testimony is necessary to prove forgery.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals declared the notarized Deed of Sale null and void, only insofar as the one-third share of Fermin de Jesus is concerned.

  2. The Court held that the presumption of regularity of notarized documents can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. In this case, Alicia de Jesus Oakes and Ronaldo de Jesus testified that the signature on page one of the Deed of Sale was not Fermin's signature, and the NBI Handwriting Expert found differences between the purported signature on page two and Fermin's standard signatures.

  3. The Court finds that the questioned signatures were indeed forged. The disparity in the handwriting becomes readily noticeable upon inspection and a visual comparison with admittedly genuine signatures.

  4. Expert testimony is not necessary to prove forgery. While the opinion of handwriting experts is helpful, the determination of forgery does not depend entirely on their testimonies. The judge can conduct an independent examination of the signatures and make a visual comparison without the need for expert opinion.

PRINCIPLES:

  • A notarized document carries evidentiary weight and the presumption of regularity, but this presumption is not absolute and can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

  • Findings of fact of the Court of Appeals, affirming those of the trial court, are generally final and conclusive, unless there is a showing that the findings are totally devoid of support or are glaringly erroneous.

  • The court may determine forgery from its own independent examination of the signatures, especially in cases where the question involves handwriting similarity or dissimilarity.

  • The opinion of handwriting experts is not binding on the court, as their function is to provide data upon which the court can form its own opinion.

  • A finding of forgery can be based on a visual comparison of the questioned signatures with those of currently existing ones.

  • A document bearing forged signatures is effectively nullified and is not binding upon any person who has not participated therein or had notice thereof.