Dizon v. Tuazon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the alleged fraudulent transfer of one-half undivided share in two parcels of land owned by Segundo Espinosa. Segundo cohabited with Laureana Bondoc, with whom he had a daughter, Estrella Tuazon, one of the respondents. Petitioners, the heirs of Segundo, claim that respondents Rodrigo and Estrella Tuazon fraudulently prepared a Deed of Absolute Sale, an Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and an Agreement of Subdivision, making it appear that Segundo had signed and acknowledged these documents. Segundo asserted that his signature was forged and that he was deceived into the transaction. Respondents, however, contend that Segundo, facing foreclosure of a mortgage on the properties, sought financial assistance from them. In return, Segundo promised to transfer his share in the properties, which he allegedly fulfilled through the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Non-tenancy in 1985, followed by the Agreement of Subdivision in 1990 to effect the conveyance. Procedural History: Segundo Espinosa passed away on October 16, 1995, without having filed a complaint for annulment of the documents, although he had prepared one. Subsequently, on November 16, 1995, the petitioners filed a complaint against the respondents for the declaration of nullity of the sale and for damages. The Regional Trial Court of Tarlac City, Branch 63, ruled in favor of the petitioners on May 19, 2003, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale, Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and Agreement of Subdivision void due to forgery and ordering the cancellation of titles. The respondents appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals, which, on January 26, 2006, reversed the trial court's ruling, finding that the petitioners had failed to establish the charge of forgery by a preponderance of evidence. The Petition: The petitioners, heirs of Segundo Espinosa, seek a review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that it erred in reversing the trial court's judgment. They contend that the appellate court disregarded the trial court's evaluation of evidence and instead gave undue credence to the respondents' witnesses. Petitioners highlight several pieces of evidence they believe prove forgery: an NBI report indicating different persons wrote the signatures, testimony from Segundo's daughter and grandson that his signature was falsified, a barangay conciliation memorandum showing Segundo questioned the genuineness of his signature as early as 1989, and the continued payment of rentals to the petitioners. They also argue that the respondents' possession of PNB receipts and owner's copies of titles does not prove a valid sale, as they allegedly gained access to these documents through deceit. The petitioners are invoking the Court's review powers to re-examine the factual findings due to the conflicting conclusions of the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the decision of the Regional Trial Court; Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale, Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and Agreement of Subdivision are null and void due to forgery of Segundo Espinosa's signature; and whether petitioners established the alleged forgery by a preponderance of evidence. Whether the NBI report definitively proves forgery of Segundo Espinosa's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale and Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and the weight to be given to handwriting expert testimony. Whether the testimonies of Soledad and Theodore Espinosa, the Barangay Lupon proceedings, and the failure to present Atty. Genilo sufficiently prove forgery.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 26 January 2006 is affirmed. Costs against petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forgery and preponderance of evidence: The Court held that notarized documents, such as the Deed of Absolute Sale, Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and Agreement of Subdivision, carry evidentiary weight and enjoy the presumption of regularity and due execution. This presumption can only be rebutted by evidence that is clear, strong, and convincing, excluding all controversy as to falsity. The burden of proof to overcome this presumption lies with the party contesting the document, which in this case are the petitioners. The Court found that the evidence presented by the petitioners was insufficient to overcome this presumption. On the NBI Report: The Court noted that the NBI report provided a definitive conclusion only regarding the signature in the Agreement of Subdivision, not the Deed of Sale or Affidavit of Non-tenancy. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that it is not bound by the findings of a handwriting expert and must weigh such testimony in light of its own knowledge and experience. The Court observed that the NBI expert stated no definite opinion could be rendered on the Deed of Absolute Sale due to insufficient sample signatures. The Court also pointed out that the expert's findings on the Agreement of Subdivision were based on an abbreviated signature ('S. Espinosa') which differed from the full signature ('Segundo Espinosa'), but the Court found only slight dissimilarities in the surname 'Espinosa' in the questioned documents and samples, which are natural variations in genuine signatures. The Court also noted the existence of a full signature on the second page of the Deed of Absolute Sale, which appeared similar to Segundo's specimen signatures, and that petitioners failed to rebut its genuineness. On the testimonies of Soledad and Theodore Espinosa, the Barangay Lupon Proceedings, and the failure to present Atty. Genilo: The Court found the testimonies of Soledad and Theodore Espinosa, who claimed Segundo always signed in full and not by initials, insufficient to conclude forgery. The Court also noted that Soledad's testimony about Segundo telling her he never signed the documents was hearsay. In contrast, the Court gave credence to the testimonies of Marino Tabaquero and Rodrigo Tuazon, who personally witnessed Segundo affix his signature. Tabaquero testified that when Segundo's attention was called to the difference in signatures on the first and second pages of the Deed of Sale, Segundo affirmed, "Yanaman yan, ana" (That is just the same. That is my signature.). Rodrigo corroborated this account. The Court found that while the barangay lupon memorandum indicated a dispute regarding the sale as early as 1989, it did not mention Segundo claiming forgery of his signature. Instead, the document showed the issues were about the amount paid by respondents and petitioners' desire to repurchase the property. The Court noted that petitioners claimed Atty. Genilo was willing to testify in their favor but failed to present him as a witness, despite the opportunity to do so. His testimony was considered crucial to determining whether Segundo appeared before him and signed the documents, and petitioners' failure to present him weakened their case.
Main Doctrine
A notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity and due execution, which can only be overcome by clear, strong, and convincing evidence that excludes all controversy as to its falsity. The burden of proof lies with the party contesting the document.