Not binding

Is it necessary to employ handwriting experts in the examination of allegedly forged documents? This is one of the main issues decided in this case.

The case involved a parcel of land with an area of 48,144 square meters covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 139 located in Pangasinan. The registered co-owners of said property were Andres who owned one-half of the eastern portion, and his grandson Dr. John who owned the one-half western portion. Dr. John was the grandson of Andres, the only child of his late son Bert with his first wife. With his second wife Dora, Andres also had three children, namely, Rica, Ted and Art.

Over a period of almost 12 years, the title to the said property underwent several transfers. Before Andres died on March 31, 1971, he and his second wife Dora appeared to have executed a Deed of Conveyance dated August 31, 1970 of the eastern portion of the land in favor of Ted. Hence OCT 139 was cancelled and replaced by TCT No. 9223 in the name of Ted. On May 11, 1971, a Deed of Quitclaim over the western portion appeared to have been executed by Dr. John. Afterwards, or on June 23, 1980, Ted executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the entire property in favor of his sister Rica. Then on May 31, 1982 Rica and Ted divided the land into two equal portions each with an area of 24,072 square meters resulting in the cancellation of TCT No. 9223 and the issuance of TCT No. 143491 in the name of Ted and TCT No. 14392 in the name of Rica

Ted and Rica nevertheless allowed their mother Dora to use and enjoy the land. However, after their mother suffered a stroke in May 1986, Art took possession of the property and continued using and appropriating its fruits even after the death of their mother on September 4, 1988. When Art refused to vacate the property and cease and desist from appropriating its fruits despite demand by Rica, the latter already filed a complaint against Art for quieting of title, accounting and damages. Ted later joined Rica as co-plaintiff while Dr. John intervened and joined Art as defendant for the quieting of title.

Art and Dr. John claimed that the signatures appearing in the Deed of Conveyance were not the signatures of Andres and Dora, whereas the signature appearing in the Deed of Quitclaim was not Dr. John’s signature. In fact Dr. John said that he was in America when the said deed was allegedly signed.

After trial, the lower court (RTC) found that the signature of Andres in the Deed of Conveyance was substantially different from his admittedly genuine and authentic signatures. It likewise ruled that the signature of Dr. John in the Deed of Quitclaim had marked differences from his signatures in other documents. Moreover, the trial court also found that Dr. John was in America when the said deed was allegedly signed by him. These findings were affirmed by the Court of Appeals. Thus it declared null and void and ordered the cancellation of TCT Nos. 143491, 143492 and 92293 and the reinstatement of OCT 139. The CA also declared Dr. John as the co-owner of the western portion of the property covered by OCT 139.

Rica and Ted questioned this decision. They contended that both the RTC and the CA erred in ruling that Andres’ and Dr. John’s signatures were forgeries. They argued that courts should have employed handwriting experts and not merely made their own findings based solely on their own examination and comparison of signatures. Were Rica and Ted correct?

No. Handwriting experts are usually helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in analyzing them. But resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination and comparison of handwritings. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts because the judge must also conduct an examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity. The opinions of handwriting experts are not binding upon court, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. The Rules of Court (Section 22, Rule 132) also explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed writing with 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 (Pontaoe vs. Pontaoe, 165318, April 22, 2008).    

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]