Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Wilson Tan and Benita Lui Tan are the registered owners of a 1,381.1 square meter lot in Quezon City, evidenced by TCT No. 349788. The lot was previously owned by Severa Gregorio. Severa Gregorio died intestate in 1976, leaving three children. In 1971, Severa Gregorio allegedly sold 2/3 of the lot to Ricardo Santos, who in turn sold it to spouses Tan in 1986. The remaining 1/3 portion was sold on execution to spouses Felicisimo and Rosalina Palomo in 1978, who later assigned it to spouses Tan in 1986. Spouses Tan registered these conveyances, leading to the cancellation of Severa Gregorio's title and the issuance of a new title in their names. Procedural History: The heirs of Severa Gregorio filed a complaint against spouses Tan, alleging that the deeds of conveyance were forged and void. A fire destroyed the Quezon City Hall records, including the original copies of the questioned deeds and TCT No. 349788. The records were ordered reconstituted. The heirs filed an amended complaint, focusing on the alleged forgery of the July 14, 1971 deed of sale between Severa Gregorio and Ricardo Santos. Ricardo Santos was declared in default. The trial court declared the deed of sale between Severa Gregorio and Ricardo Santos, and the subsequent sale from Santos to spouses Tan, as null and void. It upheld the validity of the deed of assignment from spouses Palomo to spouses Tan for the 1/3 portion and ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 349788. Both parties appealed. The Petition: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, declaring the ownership and title of spouses Tan over the entire lot as valid. The heirs of Severa Gregorio filed a petition for review on certiorari, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision for giving undue weight to a xerox copy of the deed of sale and for holding spouses Tan as innocent purchasers for value.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not giving due weight to the testimony of the NBI handwriting expert based on a xerox copy of the questioned deed of sale. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that spouses Tan are innocent purchasers for value and in good faith with respect to the 2/3 portion of the subject lot conveyed to them by Ricardo Santos.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The ownership and title of spouses Wilson Tan and Benita Lui Tan over the entire disputed lot are declared valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the admissibility of the xerox copy and the testimony of the handwriting expert: The Court reiterated the best evidence rule, which mandates that when the subject of inquiry is the contents of a document, no evidence is admissible other than the original document itself, except in specific instances. Mere photocopies are inadmissible. This rule is particularly crucial when the issue is forgery, as the genuineness of signatures must be proven by comparing the questioned signature with the authentic signature on the original document. Without the original, a definitive comparison establishing forgery cannot be made, and a comparison based on a mere xerox copy cannot produce reliable results. The Court cited U.S. vs. Gregorio and Borje vs. Sandiganbayan in holding that a xerox copy cannot be used by an expert witness in lieu of the original document for purposes of proving forgery. Furthermore, while the testimony of a questioned document examiner is helpful, it is not mandatory, and a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on such testimony. Judges must exercise independent judgment, which requires the original document to be presented in court for comparison. On the status of spouses Tan as innocent purchasers for value: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that the heirs of Gregorio failed to present evidence of any dishonest purpose or moral obliquity on the part of spouses Tan, thus failing to overcome the presumption of good faith. The burden of proving bad faith lies with the party alleging it, and in this case, the petitioners failed to discharge this onus probandi. The Court emphasized that individuals dealing with registered lands may safely rely on the correctness of the certificate of title. Spouses Tan took necessary steps to protect their investment, including verifying the title with the Register of Deeds, which showed the title to be clean except for the Palomo claim. They also purchased the property through a real estate broker and consulted a lawyer. Their conduct demonstrated due diligence, and they were not amiss in their duty to ascertain their vendor's capacity to sell. The indefeasibility of a Torrens title should not be used to perpetuate fraud, and good faith must concur with registration; otherwise, registration becomes an exercise in futility.
Main Doctrine
A mere xerox copy of a deed of sale cannot be used to prove forgery under the best evidence rule, especially when the original document was lost due to a fire, and the party alleging forgery failed to present clear and convincing evidence of such forgery.