Tapuroc v. Mende
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners, heirs of original owners, claim co-ownership of a parcel of land. They allege that a Deed of Sale purportedly executed in 1967 by their predecessors-in-interest in favor of Evans Mende is a forgery, as the vendors did not sign it and one vendor, Antonia Ebe, had already passed away prior to the purported sale. The petitioners seek the nullification of this deed, cancellation of the resulting Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (8585) T-4767, and restoration of the original title. Procedural History: The petitioners filed a Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale, Cancellation of TCT No. (8585) T-4767 and Damages with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tagbilaran City. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding the petitioners' evidence insufficient to prove forgery and noting the presence of laches due to the significant delay in filing the suit. The petitioners appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), which affirmed the RTC's decision. The CA also denied their subsequent motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioners seek a review of the CA's decision under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. They argue that the CA erred in dismissing their appeal despite sufficient evidence of forgery. Alternatively, they pray for the case to be remanded to the trial court for the presentation of an expert witness to examine the signatures. The core of their argument is that the signatures on the Deed of Sale are forged, rendering the document void and the subsequent title invalid. They contend that the lower courts erred in not allowing a handwriting expert to examine the disputed document and their own evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Sale allegedly executed on December 30, 1967, is valid. Whether the Court of Appeals contradicted itself and arrived at a conclusion contrary to the records, law, and applicable jurisprudence; and whether the petitioners' action was barred by laches and their collateral attack on the Torrens title is permissible.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the challenged decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed. The Deed of Sale is deemed valid, and the petitioners' claims are barred by laches.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the Deed of Sale: The Court held that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The petitioners failed to discharge this burden by not presenting a handwriting expert and relying on their own observation of alleged dissimilarities in signatures. The Deed of Sale, being notarized, enjoys the presumption of regularity, which the petitioners failed to overthrow with clear and convincing evidence. Even if one signature were forged, the other heirs who signed the deed did not question the transaction, and the surviving alleged vendor, Procopio Tapuroc, discovered the sale and possession in 1967 but took no action for over 29 years. On the Court of Appeals' alleged contradiction and error, laches, and collateral attack: The Court reiterated that a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, not fact. The petitioners' assertion that the CA's conclusion was contrary to the records involved a factual determination of forgery, which is beyond the Supreme Court's scope. The Court accords finality to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the appellate court. The petitioners' failure to present an expert witness led to the insufficiency of their evidence. The respondents presented sufficient proof of ownership, including continuous possession since 1967, payment of realty taxes, and securing a reconstituted title. The petitioners' action was barred by laches due to their failure to assert their alleged rights for 29 years. A Torrens title cannot be collaterally attacked, and the validity of a title can only be questioned in a direct proceeding instituted for that purpose.
Main Doctrine
The burden of proving forgery rests on the party alleging it, and mere allegations are insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity accorded to notarized documents. Laches may also bar a claim if there is an unreasonable delay in asserting a right.