G.R. No. 127857 ; June 20, 2006
PASTOR DE JESUS, Petitioner, vs. HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, RONALDO, ALICIA, FLORANTE, NELSON, BELLAFLOR, MARIO, ARNOLFO, JOCELYN and GODFREY, all surnamed DE JESUS, all represented by RONALDO DE JESUS, Respondents.

FACTS

Respondents, the legitimate children of the late Fermin de Jesus, filed a petition for partition of a parcel of land inherited by their father from their grandfather, Juan de Jesus. The property remained in the name of Juan, and respondents claimed their rightful share by representation. Petitioner Pastor de Jesus, Fermin’s brother, opposed the petition. He asserted that Fermin and their sister Consolacion had already sold their respective shares in the property to him through an Extrajudicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale dated September 13, 1979, for P10,000.00. He argued that respondents were thus no longer entitled to Fermin’s share.
The trial court, upon respondents’ challenge to the genuineness of Fermin’s signature on the deed, ordered its examination by the NBI. The NBI handwriting expert concluded that the questioned signature was not written by the same person who authored the standard signatures of Fermin. The trial court declared the deed null and void and ordered the partition of the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, finding sufficient evidence of forgery.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s declaration that the Extrajudicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale is null and void.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the appellate court’s decision, with modification. The Court upheld the finding that Fermin’s signature on the deed was forged. It emphasized that the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally binding. The conclusion of the NBI handwriting expert, supported by a clear disparity between the signatures and the testimonies of respondents, provided a sufficient basis to declare the signature a forgery.
Beyond the expert testimony, the Court found intrinsic circumstances casting doubt on the deed’s due execution. Notably, the deed was executed merely nine days before Fermin’s death while he was reportedly very ill and bedridden. The consideration of P10,000.00 for a five-hectare land was also deemed grossly inadequate. These circumstances reinforced the conclusion that Fermin did not validly execute the document. Consequently, the deed was correctly declared void with respect to Fermin’s one-third share in the estate. The Court, however, modified the ruling to clarify that the nullity pertained only to Fermin’s share, not the entire deed, as the validity of Consolacion’s sale of her own share was not in issue. Partition of the property among all legal heirs was properly ordered.