Persuasive, not conclusive

This case once more shows the evidentiary weight of a handwriting expert’s opinion on the authenticity of signatures in a contract. This is the case of Rody, an overseas contract worker and his wife, Tina.

According to Tina, on October 23, 1993, their neighbor Bien and his daughter Lita came to their house asking for a loan to defray the medical expenses of Bien’s wife Rosa who had eye and pulmonary problems. While she was willing, Tina said that she asked for collateral and Bien agreed to constitute a mortgage on their home situated at a 267-square meter unregistered lot in their hometown. So Tina said she gave the initial amount of P25,000 to Lita on the same day. Then on October 30, 1993, they proceeded to the residence of Atty. Carina who prepared and notarized a deed of mortgage which was signed by Bien and his children Glo and Paco as witnesses. On January 24, 1994 Bien and Lita again came to their house to borrow another P75,000 for the eye operation of Rosa. After giving the amount they again proceeded to the house of Atty. Carina who prepared another deed of mortgage over the same property signed by Bien with Glo and Paco as witnesses. Finally on February 10, 1994, Bien came to her to borrow another P50,000; this time Atty. Carina was in Manila so they proceeded to Atty. Bart for notarization of the third mortgage deed. The money borrowed totaling P150,000 was all handed to Lita who brought the same to Manila.

Bien and Lita however paid only a total of P5,000 by way of interest, prompting Tina to make a formal demand for the return of the whole amount loaned to them. But father and daughter failed to perform their obligation so the matter was brought to the attention of the barangay authorities for conciliation proceedings. On that occasion, Bien and Lita admitted that they borrowed money from Tina and her husband Rody. Bien even offered to pay them with a portion of the subject property which Tina and Rody declined. Since no payment was made, Rody and Tina was constrained to file a Complaint for the Foreclosure of Mortgage before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).

At the trial, aside from Tina who testified and narrated the events regarding the loan, Attys. Carina and Bart testified that Bien, together with his two children as witnesses as well as Tina signed the subject mortgage deeds and acknowledged the same in their presence.

On the part of Bien however, he outrightly denied this time that he borrowed from Tina and Roy and claimed that the deeds of mortgage were falsified and his signatures therein were forged. Lita on the other hand admitted that she was the one who obtained a loan from the couple but only in the amount of P13,000 not P150,000 for the purpose of redeeming her late godfather’s car which the latter pawned. Lita also admitted that the signature of her father on the deed of mortgage dated October 30, 1993 was forged by her late Ninong and she did all these without the knowledge and consent of her father, so it was not true that her father borrowed P150,000 from Tina and Rody because the medical expenses for her mother’s sickness were paid by her sister and brother in law. Paco and Glo the witnesses to the deeds were not presented to corroborate their testimonies about the forgeries. Instead an NBI handwriting expert was presented who testified on her findings after examination of the deeds that there are significant fundamental differences between the questioned and standard sample signatures of Bien, Paco and Glo on said documents as to manner of execution, structural formation of letters and other minute identifying details, thereby concluding that their questioned and standard signatures were not written by one and the same person.

The RTC gave more weight to the NBI handwriting expert’s opinion that the three mortgages in question could have been forged. And since Bien did not sign the mortgage deeds, Rody and Tina’s claimed loan should be negated. Hence the subject property covered by the falsified deed cannot be foreclosed. The RTC believed Lita’s explanation that she was the one who obtained the loan of P13,000 and that it was her late Ninong who forged Bien’s signatures. Was the RTC correct?

No. Notarial documents guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with law must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns them does not present strong, complete and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws and defects provided by law. Without that sort of evidence, the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon such public document with respect to its execution, as well as the statements and authenticity of the signatures thereon, stand.

Against the bare denials and interested disavowals of Bien and Lita, the testimonies of the two notaries public must prevail. Their identical and categorical declarations that Bien signed the mortgage deed in their presence present a more convincing picture of the actual events that transpired.

Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. Mere disclaimer is not sufficient. He should present corroborating witnesses to prove his assertion. Bien and Lita’s failure to present Paco and Glo, the two witnesses to the mortgage deeds is fatal to their cause. Their testimonies, if favorable, could have dissipated the justifiable supposition on the self-serving nature of Bien and Lita’s testimony.

The lone testimony of the NBI handwriting expert, who understandably is the sole disinterested witness for them cannot suffice. Standing alone amidst the mass of evidence adduced by the couple Rody and Tina, the NBI handwriting expert’s opinion cannot overturn the categorical declaration of the notaries public that Bien signed the mortgage deeds in their presence. The positive testimony of the attesting witnesses ought to prevail over expert opinions which cannot be mathematically precise but which, on the contrary, are subject to inherent infirmities. Besides, the handwriting expert’s testimony is only persuasive, not conclusive. Furthermore, Bien and Lita’s admission during the barangay conciliation proceedings that they owed money to Rody and Tina and offered to pay the same with a portion of the property should not also be discounted.

Hence Bien and Lita should jointly pay Rody and Tina P150,000 with legal interest of 12% per annum from August 18, 1995 until fully paid. In case of non-payment, the mortgaged property shall be sold at public auction (Libres and Paningbatan vs. Spouses de los Santos, G.R. 176358, June 17, 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]