G.R. No. 138906, December 13, 2004
MOISES BENTULAN, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIRS, petitioners, vs. AURELIA BENTULAN-MERCADO AND THE HEIRS OF CONCHITA BENTULAN-SALINAS, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land in Pasay City originally owned by spouses Florentino Bentulan and Librada Salinas. Upon Florentino’s death, the property was registered under TCT No. 9019, reflecting the shares of the heirs: Librada (5/8), and her three children Aurelia, Moises, and Conchita (each 1/8). Librada died in January 1969. In 1980, Aurelia discovered that a new title, TCT No. 24878, had been issued in 1979, showing Moises as the owner of a 6/8 share, allegedly after acquiring Librada’s 5/8 share through a deed of sale dated December 28, 1968.
Aurelia and the heirs of Conchita filed a petition to quiet title, alleging the deeds of sale were fictitious and the signatures of Librada and Conchita were forged. Aurelia admitted her signature appeared as a witness on the documents but claimed she was fraudulently induced by Moises. She stated she signed a private deed in 1978 based on Moises’s misrepresentation that the other signatures were genuine, and she signed blank sheets in 1969, which were later completed as a notarized deed, under the pretext they were for an ejectment case.

ISSUE

Whether the deeds of sale purportedly executed by Librada Salinas in favor of Moises Bentulan are valid, thereby transferring her 5/8 share and justifying the issuance of TCT No. 24878.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals’ decision which upheld the validity of the deeds of sale. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in cases alleging forgery and the credibility of testimonial evidence. The Court emphasized that forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the party alleging it has the burden to establish its case by a preponderance of evidence. Here, the petitioners failed to meet this burden.
The Court found the testimony of Aurelia, the principal witness for the petitioners, to be inconsistent and unreliable. Her claim of signing blank sheets was contradicted by the notarial acknowledgment, which carries the presumption of regularity. The notarized deed is a public document that enjoys prima facie evidence of its authenticity and due execution. Furthermore, the Court noted the petitioners did not present conclusive handwriting expert testimony to prove the alleged forgery of Librada’s and Conchita’s signatures. The respondents, meanwhile, presented credible witnesses, including the notary public and another witness, who testified to the due execution of the documents. Therefore, the deeds of sale were upheld as valid, and the subsequent title issued to Moises was sustained.