Coro v. Nasayao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Moises G. Coro claimed ownership of a 1,375 sq.m. parcel of land in Cancohoy, Numancia, Surigao del Norte, covered by Tax Declaration No. 16940. On July 23, 2003, he discovered that respondent Montano B. Nasayao, his stepbrother, had allegedly acquired the property through a forged Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) dated April 1, 1963, notarized by Pedro Berro. Coro denied signing the DOAS, appearing before the notary, or receiving consideration. Respondent's wife and children intervened, asserting that Coro sold the property to Nasayao on April 1, 1963; Nasayao transferred the tax declaration to No. 17518 on April 19, 1963, paid taxes dutifully, and obtained OCT No. 15011 on December 10, 1996. In February 2003, Coro approached them to repurchase the land but was refused; thereafter, exploiting Nasayao's illness, Coro occupied the property surreptitiously. Procedural History: Coro filed a Complaint for Annulment of DOAS, Reconveyance with Damages and Attorney's Fees in RTC Branch 31, Dapa, Surigao del Norte (Civil Case No. 540). After trial, RTC dismissed the complaint on September 30, 2014, declaring the DOAS genuine, valid, and binding; awarded respondent P50,000 moral damages, P30,000 exemplary, P20,000 attorney's fees, P10,000 litigation expenses, plus costs; ruled forgery unproven and action prescribed. On appeal (CA-G.R. CV No. 03851-MIN), CA affirmed on March 29, 2017, rejecting testimonies as insufficient against public document presumption, though disagreeing on prescription; denied MR on September 22, 2017, noting signature similarities across decades and no stark differences. The Petition: In Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, Coro argued CA erred in upholding DOAS validity despite alleged forgery, claiming his and wife's signatures forged; disputed RTC's signature comparisons using his 1995 documents and verification; assailed damages awards as unproven, lacking evidence of anguish or malice, and emphasized no automatic attorney's fees for litigation rights.
Issue(s)
Whether the genuineness of signatures on the 1963 notarized Deed of Absolute Sale is a factual question not reviewable under Rule 45, and whether petitioner discharged the burden to prove forgery by clear, positive, convincing evidence. Whether the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses to respondent were properly granted.
Ruling
The petition is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The CA Decision (March 29, 2017) and Resolution (September 22, 2017) are AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION deleting awards of moral damages (P50,000), exemplary damages (P30,000), attorney's fees (P20,000), and litigation expenses (P10,000). No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Forgery and DOAS Validity): The issue of signature genuineness on the DOAS is a pure question of fact, beyond Rule 45's scope limiting review to errors of law distinctly set forth (Rule 45, Sec. 1), requiring evidence re-evaluation which the Supreme Court cannot undertake as it is not a trier of facts; trial court findings, affirmed by CA, are accorded finality absent exceptions like gross error (none present). Forgery is never presumed; the alleging party bears the burden under Rule 131, Sec. 1 to prove by clear, positive, convincing evidence outweighing opposition via preponderance, specifically comparing disputed signatures to genuine specimens showing variations from different authorship, not natural inconsistencies (Gepulle-Garbo v. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846). RTC/CA found petitioner's testimonies (self, daughter, stepdaughter) uncorroborated; signatures matched across DOAS (1963), SSS ID, verification (2003), CTCs (2000/2003), affidavit, with similar strokes despite 40-year gap, no expert needed for evident sameness. Wife's signatures similarly consistent with 1995 documents. As a notarized public document, DOAS enjoys prima facie presumption of authenticity, due execution, and regularity (Libres v. Sps. Delos Santos, 577 Phil. 509), overcome only by strong, conclusive proof of falsity, which petitioner failed to provide, sustaining its full faith and credit. On Issue 2 (Damages): Moral damages compensate actual mental anguish, fright, etc., requiring clear, convincing proof proportional to suffering, not bare allegations of fraud/bad faith (Art. 2217, Civil Code; Quezon City Government v. Dacara, 499 Phil. 228); respondent offered none beyond claims, warranting deletion. Exemplary damages (Art. 2229) require prior compensatory/moral award, plus bad faith proof; absent moral damages basis, deleted (Sps. Timado v. Rural Bank, 789 Phil. 453). Attorney's fees/litigation expenses need explicit factual/legal justification in decision body, not mere counsel engagement; RTC's generic statement insufficient, thus deleted (Spouses Yulo v. BPI, G.R. No. 217044).
Main Doctrine
Forgery is never presumed and must be proved by the party alleging it through clear, positive, and convincing evidence, establishing a preponderance over opposing evidence via comparison of disputed and genuine signatures showing variations due to different authorship, not mere natural inconsistencies. The burden lies on the claimant to demonstrate that any resemblance is imitation rather than habitual writing traits. Notarized documents, as public instruments, carry a prima facie presumption of authenticity, due execution, and regularity, guaranteed by notarial certification, which can only be overcome by strong, complete, conclusive proof of falsity or legal defects. Questions of signature genuineness are factual, not reviewable under Rule 45 petitions limited to pure questions of law, with trial court findings accorded finality when affirmed by appellate courts absent exceptions. Moral damages require proof of actual mental anguish or similar injury, not bare allegations, while exemplary damages presuppose an award of compensatory, moral, temperate, or liquidated damages and proof of bad faith or oppressiveness.