Mendoza v. Fermin
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Leonardo G. Mendoza allegedly married to petitioner Serconsision R. Mendoza died on November 25, 1986. Respondent Aurora Mendoza Fermin, as the legitimate daughter of Leonardo, was appointed administratrix of his estate. In March 1989, petitioner submitted an inventory of Leonardo's properties, including Lot 39, Block 12 in Parañaque City. In 1990, respondent discovered a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 22, 1986, purportedly selling the said property to Eduardo C. Sanchez for ₱150,000.00. This deed was registered on April 30, 1991, five years after the alleged sale. Petitioner continued to collect rentals from the property and did not inform tenants of the alleged sale. Procedural History: Respondent filed a case for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title, and Damages, alleging forgery of her father's signature. She presented an NBI handwriting expert who opined that the signatures were not by the same person, and a witness who claimed petitioner admitted to signing documents for Leonardo due to his failing eyesight. Respondent also presented certifications showing the notary public was not commissioned in Pasay City at the time of notarization. Petitioner presented a PNP document examiner who testified there was no forgery. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding no forgery and upholding the sale's validity, reasoning that no witness directly saw the forgery and that even a defective notarization does not invalidate the sale between parties. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding the signatures to be forgeries after its own examination and considering the questionable circumstances. The CA declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void, ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 52593 and revival of TCT No. 48946, declared the property part of Leonardo's estate, and ordered defendants to pay attorney's fees. The CA denied petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioner filed a petition for review on certiorari, arguing that the CA gravely erred in setting aside the RTC's findings of fact regarding the authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Sale and in reversing the RTC's finding that the deed was valid.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the findings of fact of the trial court regarding the authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Sale. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid despite allegations of forgery and defective notarization.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated January 25, 2007, and Resolution dated March 28, 2007, of the Court of Appeals are affirmed in toto.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forgery and the CA's reversal of the RTC's findings: The Court held that while the general rule is that findings of fact of the CA are conclusive, an exception exists when the CA's findings contradict those of the trial court, as in this case. The Court affirmed the CA's finding of forgery, noting that the CA conducted an independent examination of the signatures. The CA found marked differences between the questioned signatures and the specimen signatures, particularly in the execution of the initial letter 'O', with the questioned signatures appearing hesitant and awkward, unlike the free, rapid, and fluid execution of the genuine signatures. The Court emphasized that while handwriting experts are helpful, judges must exercise independent judgment. The Court found that the dissimilarity was visible to the naked eye, rendering expert testimony less critical. Furthermore, the Court considered other evidence, such as petitioner's continued collection of rentals, her failure to inform tenants of the sale, the inclusion of the property in Leonardo's inventory, and the lack of interest shown by the alleged buyer, Eduardo Sanchez, who never testified. The Court found petitioner's claim that Leonardo signed the document in her presence to be self-serving and biased. The Court also gave weight to respondent's familiarity with her father's signature, having been his private secretary, which supported her conclusion of forgery. On the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale: The Court ruled that the Deed of Absolute Sale was a forgery and therefore conveyed nothing. The Court rejected the RTC's reliance on the presumption of regularity of notarized documents, stating that this presumption is not absolute and can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. The Court pointed to several defects: the existence of two versions of the deed for the same transaction, the questionable notarization by Atty. Julian Tubig who was allegedly not commissioned in Pasay City at the time, and the conflicting information regarding the place of notarization. These defects stripped the document of its public character, reducing it to a private instrument, and thus requiring proof by preponderance of evidence, which favored the respondent. The Court further noted that the property was part of the conjugal partnership of Leonardo and Serconsision Mendoza, as indicated by TCT No. 48946. Since the sale was executed without Leonardo's consent (as it was a forgery), and considering the sale occurred before the Family Code, Article 173 of the Civil Code applied. This article allows the wife or her heirs to seek annulment of contracts entered into by the husband without her consent, or acts that defraud her or impair her interest in the conjugal partnership property. The Court found that the fictitious deed deprived the heirs of their hereditary rights, justifying the annulment. The Court also upheld the award of attorney's fees, finding that respondent was compelled to litigate to protect her hereditary rights.
Main Doctrine
The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the trial court's decision, finding that the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were forgeries based on an independent examination of the signatures and the totality of the evidence, which included questionable circumstances surrounding the deed's execution and the conduct of the parties.