FACTS:

The case involves a dispute over the ownership and authenticity of certain documents related to the transfer of two parcels of land. Segundo Espinosa, the original owner of one-half undivided share in the properties, cohabited with Laureana Bondoc and had a daughter named Estrella Tuazon, who is one of the respondents in the case. In 1988, petitioner Soledad Dizon, Segundo's daughter, discussed with her brother the transfer of the properties in their name. They learned that the titles of the properties were in the name of Estrella and respondent Rodrigo Tuazon. It was alleged that the respondents had prepared the necessary documents, including a Deed of Absolute Sale, an Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and an Agreement of Subdivision, and made it appear that Segundo had signed and executed them. Segundo claimed that he was deceived by the respondents and that his signature had been forged. Attempts to settle the matter through barangay conciliation were unsuccessful. Before the complaint could be filed in court, Segundo fell ill and eventually passed away. The petitioners filed a complaint for the nullity of the sale and damages against the respondents. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the documents null and void, and ordered the cancellation of the titles in the respondents' names. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the petitioners failed to establish forgery. The petitioners argued that the Court of Appeals erred in its evaluation and disregarded evidence of forgery. The Supreme Court decided to review the conflicting findings of the lower courts.

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not the signature of Segundo Espinosa in the subject documents is a forgery.

2. Whether or not the trial court erred in giving weight to the testimonies of the witnesses who identified the genuine signatures of Segundo Espinosa.

3. Whether or not the appellate court erred in finding that Segundo Espinosa signed the second page of the document, thus implying that he also signed the first page.

4. Whether or not the signatures appearing in the questioned documents were forged.

5. Whether or not the testimonies of Soledad and Theodore are credible.

6. Whether or not the endorsement from the Barangay Lupon supports the claim of forgery.

7. Whether or not the failure of the petitioners to present Atty. Genilo as a witness affects the determination of the case.

RULING:

1. The trial court ruled that Segundo Espinosa's signature in the subject documents is a forgery based on the NBI Report and the testimony of witnesses who identified the genuine signatures of Segundo Espinosa. On the other hand, the Court of Appeals ruled that petitioners failed to establish their claim by preponderance of evidence. The Court of Appeals also took into consideration the testimony of a witness who personally witnessed Segundo Espinosa affix his signature and the possession of original PNB receipts by the respondents as proof of valuable consideration.

2. The trial court did not err in giving weight to the testimonies of the witnesses who identified the genuine signatures of Segundo Espinosa. The Court of Appeals also gave credence to the testimony of a witness who personally witnessed Segundo Espinosa affix his signature. Thus, both courts found the testimonies of these witnesses to be credible.

3. The appellate court correctly found that if Segundo Espinosa signed the second page of the document, it follows that he likewise signed the first page. Therefore, the trial court did not err in ruling that Segundo Espinosa's signature was not a forgery.

4. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the slight dissimilarities between the questioned signatures and the sample signatures are natural and inevitable variations, and do not indicate forgery. The handwriting expert also stated that no definite opinion of falsification or forgery could be rendered due to insufficient basis for a scientific comparative examination. The testimonies of Soledad and Theodore were deemed insufficient to conclude that the signatures were forged, while the testimonies of Tabaquero and Rodrigo, who personally witnessed Segundo affix his signature, were given more weight. The endorsement from the Barangay Lupon did not mention Segundo's claim of forgery, but instead focused on the amount actually paid by respondents and petitioners' desire to repurchase the property. The failure of the petitioners to present Atty. Genilo as a witness, despite claiming that he would testify in their favor, was considered detrimental to their case.

PRINCIPLES:

• Notarized documents carry evidentiary weight and enjoy a presumption of regularity in their execution. The burden of proof to overcome this presumption lies on the one contesting the document. Absent clear, strong, and convincing evidence to prove falsity, the presumption must be upheld.

• Expert opinion evidence, such as that of a handwriting expert, is not binding on the court. The court weighs such testimony in light of its own general knowledge and experience. The probative force of expert testimony lies in showing the facts and reasons that serve as the basis for the expert's conclusion. An accurate examination to determine forgery should consider both the differences and similarities between the questioned signatures.

• Slight dissimilarities between signatures do not necessarily indicate forgery when they are natural and inevitable variations.

• A handwriting expert's opinion on the genuineness of a signature can be limited by the insufficiency of sample signatures for scientific comparative examination.

• Testimonies that are mere hearsay or not based on personal knowledge have less evidentiary value.

• Testimonies of witnesses who personally witnessed the affixing of a signature carry more weight.

• Documentary evidence must be examined in accordance with its contents and not based on mere conjecture or supposition.

• Failure to present a crucial witness can negatively impact the determination of a case.