Alfaro v. Bagano
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Olegario and Cecilia Bagano (respondents) filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Sale with Damages against Spouses Peblia and Prosperous Alfaro (petitioners). Respondents alleged that they were the registered owners of a parcel of land, and after executing a real estate mortgage and paying the debt, petitioners refused to return their title. Respondents discovered their title was cancelled and a new one issued to petitioners by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 14, 1995, which respondents claimed bore forged signatures. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding the Deed of Absolute Sale to be valid and ordering respondents to pay damages. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void ab initio and reinstating the respondents' title. The CA also ordered petitioners to pay moral damages and attorney's fees. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA's decision, raising issues concerning the selective reversal of factual findings, selective discussion of contract elements, the ruling on the failure to offer a report, the denial of their motion for reconsideration, and the citation of testimony that was allegedly stricken off the records.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the factual findings of the RTC regarding the alleged forgery of signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its selective discussion of the elements of a contract of sale, ruling on the failure to offer a specific report in evidence, denying petitioners' motion for reconsideration, and citing testimony that was allegedly stricken off the records.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. The Decision of the Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 12, is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged forgery of signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale: The Court found that the handwriting expert, Romeo Varona, presented inconsistent findings. Initially, Varona testified that the signatures on Exhibit "B" (a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale) were forged. However, upon examination of Exhibit "13" (another copy of the same deed) and specimen signatures provided by petitioners, Varona concluded that the signatures on Exhibit "13" were affixed by the same persons who affixed the specimen signatures. The RTC considered this a retraction, while the CA disregarded Varona's findings on Exhibit "13" due to a perceived lack of a formal report. The Supreme Court clarified that Varona's examinations involved different standard and specimen signatures, thus not a retraction. However, the inconsistent findings rendered Varona's testimony unconvincing, leaving the presumption of validity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale unscathed. The Court emphasized that forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the respondents. Respondents failed to substantiate their claim with sufficient evidence, relying solely on the inconsequential opinion of the expert and bare assertions. The Court also considered the positive testimony of petitioner Peblia Alfaro who saw respondent Olegario Bagano affix his signature, and the comparison of signatures on the Real Estate Mortgage (Exhibit "2"), which was duly notarized and admitted by respondent Cecilia Bagano. Mere variance in signatures does not conclusively prove forgery. On the other issues raised: The Court deemed it unnecessary to discuss the other issues raised by the petitioners, as the determinative issue of forgery was resolved in favor of the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court held that when a document in two or more copies is executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals. The Court also emphasized that forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof rests on the party alleging it. Inconsistent findings by a handwriting expert do not automatically negate the presumption of regularity of a notarized document.