View full case

SPS. PEBLIA ALFARO v. CA

FACTS:

The case involves a dispute between Spouses Olegario and Cecilia Bagano (respondents) and Spouses Peblia and Prosperous Alfaro (petitioners) over a parcel of land known as Lot No. 1710 in Cebu City. The respondents filed a complaint seeking the nullification of a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly executed by them, alleging that their signatures were forged. The petitioners denied the forgery and claimed that they purchased the lot from the respondents for the amount of P534,000.00. The respondents presented a handwriting expert who concluded that the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were indeed forged. The petitioners requested the expert to examine another set of documents containing what they claimed were the genuine signatures of the respondents, and the expert confirmed that the signatures were similar to those on the Deed of Absolute Sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint, but the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void, ordering the reinstatement of the respondents' title and the payment of damages and attorney's fees. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

In this case, petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals made an error in reversing the trial court's judgment. The issues raised by the petitioners were as follows: (1) the selective reversal of the trial court's factual findings; (2) the selective discussion of the elements of a contract of sale to invalidate the deed of absolute sale; (3) the ruling that the failure to offer the second questioned report as evidence was fatal to the petitioners' cause; (4) the denial of the petitioners' motion for reconsideration; and (5) the citing of respondent Olegario Bagano's testimony in the decision despite being stricken off the records for failure to be cross-examined.

The main issue in this case is whether or not the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were forged. The Court of Appeals' factual findings were in conflict with the trial court's findings, thus requiring a thorough examination of the evidence presented by both parties.

The Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized, which gives it the presumption of regularity and evidentiary weight with respect to its due execution. The presumption should be upheld unless there is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence to the contrary.

Respondents presented an expert witness, Varona, who claimed that the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged. However, petitioners countered this claim by presenting Varona's testimony on cross-examination and his findings on another original of the Deed of Absolute Sale. The trial court concluded that Varona had retracted his earlier finding of forgery.

The trial court upheld the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale, citing the rule that instruments are evidence of the fact which gave rise to their execution and the date of the latter. The court also noted that the questioned deed is a notarial document and bears the presumption of regularity. The court further determined that respondents filed the case in bad faith to cover up their wrongdoings.

The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court's conclusion and held that the signatures on the Deed of Sale were forged based on Varona's findings and testimony.

ISSUES:

  1. The issue in this case is whether the signatures of the spouses appearing in the Deed of Sale were forged.

  2. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale is genuine or forged.

  3. Whether the findings of the handwriting expert, Varona, are reliable and conclusive.

  4. Whether the respondents were able to prove that their signatures were forged in the deed of sale.

  5. Whether the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale is genuine based on the evidence presented.

RULING:

  1. The Court of Appeals ruled that the signatures of the spouses appearing in the Deed of Sale were indeed forged. The court based its ruling on the testimony of the document examiner who found that the signatures were forged. Despite attempts by the defendants' counsel to make it appear that the document examiner examined the Deed of Sale, the court found that there was no report made on the second request for examination and that the document examiner did not actually receive or examine the original copy of the Deed of Sale.

  2. The Deed of Absolute Sale is deemed genuine as the signatures of the respondents were determined to be theirs. The trial court erred in using Varona's second opinion on a different set of documents to conclude that the questioned deed is genuine. The inconsistent findings of Varona render his testimony unconvincing, and the presumption of validity of the notarized document remains unscathed.

  3. The Court of Appeals disregarded Varona's conclusions on the authenticity of another copy of the deed because the written report containing the conclusions was not presented in evidence. Without Varona's testimony, there is insufficient evidence to establish forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to prove it by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The bare assertions of the respondents that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale is not that of her husband is not enough, and no additional witnesses were presented.

  4. The burden of proving forgery rests on the party alleging it. In this case, the respondents failed to substantiate their claim that their signatures on the deed of sale were forged. Therefore, their claim of forgery is not proven.

  5. There is sufficient evidence on record to support the presumption of authenticity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. The positive testimony of a witness who saw the respondent affix his signature on the document, as well as the comparison of signatures on other documents, indicate the genuineness of the deed. The objection raised by the respondents regarding the materiality and relevancy of the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage is not sufficient to rebut the presumption of authenticity.

PRINCIPLES:

  • When a document in two or more copies is executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. The original depends upon the issue to be proved. It is immaterial whether that document was written before or after another, was copied from another, or was itself used to copy from, as long as its contents are the subject of inquiry.

  • Deeds of conveyance are prepared in several copies for notarization and record purposes. After notarization, the notary public retains copies, one for his record and the other for transmittal to the court. The parties agree on how many copies should be kept by each and which copies shall be presented to the Register of Deeds.

  • Forgery is not presumed and must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.

  • The presumption of validity of a notarized document remains unless sufficiently rebutted.

  • Handwriting experts are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting, but their testimony can be useful.

  • Forgery must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence.

  • The burden of proving forgery rests on the party alleging it.

  • The presumption of authenticity applies to notarized documents.

  • Mere variance of signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof of forgery.

  • Lack of rebuttal evidence may weaken the claim of forgery.