The case involved a parcel of land which was titled way back in 1930 pursuant to decree of land registration in favor of Matilde. Matilde was married to Fernando. They begot four daughters who were all still minors when Matilde died on April 3, 1943. The four daughters learned for the first time about this property of their mother in 1975 from their auntie who was its supposed caretaker. They had no copy of the original title except the Application for Registration of Title filed by their late mother in 1929 and the Court order dated 1930 for the issuance of a Decree commanding the registration of the subject property in their mother’s name.
Armed with these documents, the four sisters led by Carmela filed a petition for reconstitution of their mother’s original certificate of title in 1977. The filing of this petition led to other discoveries about the land. The sisters learned that a Presbyterian Protestant Church bought the property from their parents way back in 1936 and a church building was constructed on it that same year. The Transfer Certificate of Title to the said land was the subject of a petition for reconstitution by the union of several protestant church bodies(UCCP) to which the property was transferred by the original buyer. In fact the petition was already granted and a new TCT was already issued in the name of UCCP.
Entertaining doubts as to the truthfulness of the Deed of Sale executed by their parents in 1936, they secured a copy of the same and showed it to their father, Fernando, who denied having signed it. Consequently, they asked for signature verification of the said deed of sale by the NBI and PC handwriting experts. The NBI found that the sample signatures of Matilde appearing in photocopies or dated years away from the questioned signatures in the Deed of Sale were not written by the same person. But no definite opinion was given by the NBI as to Fernado’s signatures because of the insufficiency in numbers of his sample signatures. The PC Crime Laboratory on the other hand came to the conclusion that the signatures of both Matilde and Fernando were written by persons other than the said spouses.
So in 1982, the four sisters filed a suit against several protestant churches involved including the pastor, asking the court to declare the nullity of the deed of sale and the title, and the reconveyance of the property in their favor. They relied on the findings of forgeries of the Deed of Sale made by the government handwriting experts.
After a series of legal maneuvers and trial on the merits that lasted for more than 12 years, the Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in favor of the sisters declaring the nullity of the deed of sale and the TCT due to forgery. The RTC gave much weight, credibility and reliability on the findings of the handwriting experts from both the NBI and the PC. These experts had declared the signatures of both their parents in the 1936 Deed of Sale as forgeries.
On appeal however, the Court of Appeals(CA) reversed the RTC. The CA doubted the findings of the NBI and the PC, disregarded it and made their own separate findings themselves. They examined and analyzed the alleged forged signatures on the documents which were available and found no substantial indicia or reason to suspect their authenticity contrary to the findings of the NBI and the PC which were relied upon by the RTC.
Was the CA correct?
Yes.
A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny. The authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature. The opinions of handwriting experts is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist of a highly technical issue. A judge must therefore conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. The Rules of Court(Sec.22, Rule 132) authorizes the court by itself to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with the writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
Forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Those who make the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving it since mere allegation is not evidence. The evidence of the sisters failed to prove the forgery they claim. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself showing the alleged forgeries. The fact of forgery can be established by comparing the allegedly false signature with the authentic or genuine signature. This was exactly what the CA did. After comparing the alleged forged signature of Matilde on the 1936 Deed of Sale with her authentic or genuine specimen, the CA made its independent conclusion that there was nothing irregular in the signature on the questioned document. This right–nay, duty– of the RTC judge was exercised by the justices of the appellate court when they overturned the RTC’s findings (Jimenez et. al. vs. United Church of Christ in the Philippines et. al. G.R. 140472 June 10, 2002).