G.R. No. 202612 January 17, 2018
TEODORO C. TORTONA, ET AL., Petitioners vs. JULIAN C. GREGORIO, ET AL., Respondents

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Rufina Casimiro, filed an action for recovery of real property against respondents, heirs of Rafaela Casimiro. The dispute centered on two parcels of land co-owned by Rufina and Rafaela. Petitioners discovered that their mother’s shares in the properties had been consolidated with respondents’ shares based on a 1974 Deed of Absolute Sale, which purportedly showed Rufina selling her interests to Rafaela. Petitioners contended their mother was illiterate, only affixing her thumbmark on documents with the assistance of at least one child, and they were unaware of any such sale. They presented standard documents bearing Rufina’s authentic thumbmarks and the testimony of an NBI fingerprint examiner, who initially reported that the thumbmarks on the questioned Deed were not identical to the standards and were not impressed by Rufina.
The Regional Trial Court ruled the Deed was a forgery, crediting the NBI expert’s initial findings. The Court of Appeals reversed, giving more weight to the notarial acknowledgment of the Deed and finding the expert’s subsequent clarification—that the standard thumbmarks were faint and lacked ridge characteristics for positive identification—cast doubt on the conclusion of forgery. The appellate court held petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of due execution accorded to notarized documents.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged based on the NBI fingerprint examination.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic proceeds from the principle that while notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this presumption is disputable and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Here, the petitioners successfully presented such evidence. The NBI expert’s initial report positively concluded the thumbmarks were forgeries. His subsequent clarification did not retract this finding but merely explained the condition of the standard exemplars; he maintained that all standard thumbmarks shared the same pattern and ridge flow, which differed from the questioned marks. The trial court, as the primary evaluator of evidence, found this testimony credible and itself observed a visible difference in the thumbmark patterns.
The Supreme Court emphasized that the expert’s opinion, coupled with the factual circumstances—Rufina’s illiteracy, her consistent practice of requiring child assistance, and the petitioners’ lack of knowledge of the sale—constituted the clear and convincing proof required to rebut the notarial presumption. The Deed, being founded on a forged thumbmark, was declared void. Consequently, ownership of the disputed shares remained with Rufina and passed to her rightful heirs, the petitioners.