Rivera v. Turiano
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a parcel of land in Parañaque City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. S-5667, registered in the name of Paz Aquino. Mariano Rivera and Jose Rivera (petitioners) claim that Manuel Pelaez, on behalf of Paz Aquino, executed a Deed of Real Estate Mortgage over the property on February 18, 1987, to secure a P240,000.00 loan. The petitioners obtained the owner's duplicate copy of the title. In 1991, when the petitioners attempted to register the mortgage, they discovered an Affidavit of Loss executed by Emerito Aquino Turiano (private respondent), Paz Aquino's son, dated December 28, 1990, which had been annotated on the title. The petitioners allege this affidavit was executed maliciously and fraudulently, preventing their mortgage registration. The private respondent contends that his mother, Paz Aquino, solely managed her property and that the signature on the Special Power of Attorney in favor of Manuel Pelaez is not his mother's, asserting it is a forgery. 2. Procedural History: The petitioners initiated this case by filing a Complaint for Cancellation of Encumbrance on TCT No. S-5667 with Claim for Damages against the private respondent. The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 258, Parañaque City, issued an Order on March 18, 1996, granting partial summary judgment and declaring the Affidavit of Loss null and void. Subsequently, on February 2, 1997, the RTC rendered a Decision ordering the Register of Deeds to cancel the annotation of the Affidavit of Loss and to register the Deed of Real Estate Mortgage executed by Manuel Pelaez in favor of the petitioners. The private respondent appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals (CA). On September 28, 2001, the CA reversed the RTC's decision, declaring the Special Power of Attorney and the Deed of Mortgage void, ordering the cancellation of their annotations, and directing the petitioners to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of the title. The CA denied the petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration in a Resolution dated November 21, 2002. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the CA erred in declaring the Special Power of Attorney and the Deed of Mortgage void, in ordering the cancellation of their annotations on TCT No. S-5667, and in ordering them to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of the title. The core of their argument is that the CA's finding of forgery based solely on a visual comparison of signatures was erroneous, as forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the private respondent failed to meet this burden of proof. They contend that variations in signatures over time are natural and do not automatically establish forgery, especially when the criteria for proving forgery, as laid out in established jurisprudence, were not met by the private respondent.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Special Power of Attorney and the Deed of Mortgage null and void due to alleged forgery. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the cancellation of annotations on TCT No. S-5667 and ordering the petitioners to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of TCT No. S-5667, based on the finding that the Special Power of Attorney and Deed of Mortgage were invalid.
Ruling
The Court grants the petition. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forgery and the validity of the Special Power of Attorney and Deed of Mortgage: The Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in concluding that the Special Power of Attorney (SPA) was a forgery based solely on a "mere ocular inspection" of the signatures. The Court reiterated its established jurisprudence that an allegation of forgery, supported only by a perfunctory comparison of signatures, is insufficient to prove forgery. Forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the party alleging it. The criteria for identifying forgery, as laid down in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals, require more than just showing material differences; it necessitates demonstrating the extent, kind, and significance of the variation, proving it is due to a different personality and not natural variations, and showing that resemblances are due to skillful imitation rather than habitual characteristics. The respondent failed to meet this burden of proof. The Court noted that the significant time gaps between the dates of the documents (1972, 1982, and 1987) could naturally account for variations in Paz Aquino's signature due to the passage of time. Therefore, the CA's conclusion of fraud was based on insufficient evidence, rendering the SPA and the subsequent mortgage valid. On the cancellation of annotations and surrender of the title: Since the Court found the SPA and the Deed of Mortgage to be valid, the basis for the CA's order to cancel the annotations related to these documents and to surrender the owner's duplicate copy of the title is removed. The RTC's decision, which ordered the cancellation of the affidavit of loss and the registration of the Deed of Mortgage, is affirmed. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to have their mortgage annotated on the title, and the respondent's claim of forgery, which led to the affidavit of loss and subsequent refusal to register the mortgage, is dismissed.
Main Doctrine
A mere variance in signatures, especially when the documents are dated years apart, is insufficient to prove forgery. Forgery must be established by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, with the burden of proof resting on the party alleging it. The analysis of signatures must go beyond superficial differences and consider the extent, kind, and significance of variations, determining if they are due to a different personality or natural variations in genuine writing, and whether resemblances are due to skillful imitation or habitual characteristics.