Liwagon v. Liwagon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Angel and Francisca Liwagon were awarded a parcel of land. Angel's son, Demetrio, and his wife, Regina, stayed with Angel and administered the property. Angel applied for final acquisition of the land, and a deed of conveyance was executed in his favor. After Angel's death, his other children (petitioners) demanded partition, but Demetrio requested deferment. Demetrio and Regina continued to occupy the land. After Demetrio and Regina died, Demetrio's son, Rodrigo, claimed ownership by inheritance, presenting a Deed of Sale dated July 24, 1972, purportedly from Angel to Regina. Petitioners filed a case for annulment of sale, partition, accounting, and damages, alleging forgery of Angel's signature on the Deed of Sale. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint for lack of merit, finding that petitioners failed to disprove the genuineness of Angel's signature on the Deed of Sale and upholding the presumption of regularity. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, ruling that the Deed of Sale appeared regular and valid on its face, and petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to controvert its presumption of regularity. The CA also noted that variances in signatures are not conclusive proof of forgery and that petitioners failed to present strong, concrete, and conclusive proof of forgery. The Petition: Petitioners sought review from the Supreme Court, arguing that the Deed of Sale was void because Angel was merely an awardee and not yet the owner of the land when he allegedly sold it in 1972, as the Deed of Absolute Sale was issued in his name only in 1974. They also contended that courts could determine forgery through visual comparison of signatures and that Demetrio's failure to disclose the deed was an indication of concealment and guilt.
Issue(s)
Whether the purported Deed of Sale executed by Angel Liwagon in favor of Regina Liwagon in 1972 is valid, and whether the petitioners presented sufficient evidence to prove forgery of Angel Liwagon's signature on the Deed of Sale. Whether the Deed of Sale is void for being executed by Angel Liwagon when he was not yet the absolute owner of the property. Whether the alleged concealment by Demetrio is sufficient basis to declare the sale fictitious.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed. The Deed of Sale dated July 24, 1972, is declared valid.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the Deed of Sale and the issue of forgery: The Court reiterated that a notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of regularity, authenticity, and due execution. This presumption can only be overcome by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. Petitioners failed to overcome this presumption. Their sole evidence was the testimony of Josefina Liwagon-Escauso, who claimed the signature was not her father's. However, no expert witness testified, nor was there any other corroborating evidence presented to support the claim of forgery. The Court emphasized that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and that mere allegations are not sufficient. The Court also noted that variances in signatures do not automatically prove forgery, especially without expert examination. The burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it, and petitioners failed to discharge this burden. On the issue of ownership at the time of sale: The Court held that the argument that Angel Liwagon was not yet the owner of the land when he executed the Deed of Sale in 1972, as the Deed of Absolute Sale was issued in his name only in 1974, was a new cause of action that was not raised before the lower courts. The Amended Complaint in the trial court was anchored on forgery. The Court stressed that issues not raised before the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, as this violates basic considerations of due process and converts the appellate court into a trier of facts. The RTC and CA had jurisdiction to hear and rule on evidence related to forgery, but not on a new claim of invalidity based on lack of ownership at the time of sale, which was not pleaded. On the alleged concealment by Demetrio: The Court found that the circumstance that Demetrio did not disclose the existence of the Deed of Sale to his siblings during his lifetime was not sufficient basis to declare the sale fictitious. While petitioners might consider it concealment, the Court requires relevant, convincing, and clear evidence, not mere unsubstantiated conjectures, to invalidate a notarized deed. Petitioners failed to provide such evidence to prove that the Deed of Sale was not valid.
Main Doctrine
A notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and authenticity, which can only be overcome by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. Mere allegation of forgery, especially without expert testimony or strong corroborating evidence, is insufficient to invalidate a notarized document.