G.R. No. 48359; March 20, 1944
CASIMIRO MENENTE and FLORENCIA MENENTE, petitioners, vs. PAULO TESORO, respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners Casimiro and Florencia Menente are the children of Basilio Menente, who died on February 9, 1918. Basilio was a co-owner with his brothers Juan and Esteban Menente of a parcel of land (lot 521). In the latter part of 1919, respondent Paulo Tesoro took possession of Basilio’s share, except for a two-hectare portion left with Basilio’s widow, Merced Pinaga. Tesoro claimed he purchased the share from Basilio for P1,219.90, evidenced by a private document (Exhibit F) dated May 16, 1917, witnessed by Juan Menente and Leoncio Pinaga. Merced Pinaga acquiesced to the dispossession. In 1920, upon Tesoro’s petition in the cadastral case (with notice to but no objection from Juan Menente as administrator of Basilio’s estate), the court ordered the transfer of Basilio’s share to Tesoro, who had also acquired the shares of the other co-owners. Tesoro thereafter possessed the land as owner. On May 4, 1938, petitioners filed an action to recover the land, alleging Basilio’s signature on the deed was forged and the transfer was through connivance with their uncle Juan. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found no proof of connivance and, despite some doubt about the signature’s genuineness, were persuaded the sale occurred and the price was paid, thus absolving Tesoro. The Court of Appeals decision was split (3-2), with the dissent believing the signature was forged.

ISSUE

1. Whether the private deed of sale (Exhibit F) bearing Basilio Menente’s signature was forged.
2. Whether petitioners’ action is barred by prescription or laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment, dismissing the petition.
1. On the Authenticity of the Signature: The Court examined the questioned signature (Exhibit F) and an unquestioned signature (Exhibit G) of Basilio Menente. It found the questioned signature genuine, noting both were written by an unaccustomed hand with similar general appearance. Differences in ink flow or letter angles were attributed to pen/ink quality or the signer’s inexperience. The misspelling of the surname as “Menenete” in the questioned document was deemed unlikely for a forger copying a model but plausible for an inexpert signer. The Court also reasoned that the witnesses to the document were Basilio’s close relatives (brother and father-in-law), who would not have remained silent if it were a forgery, especially when the title transfer was petitioned in court while they were still alive.
2. On Prescription and Laches: The Court held petitioners were guilty of inexcusable laches. The transfer of possession and title occurred in 1919-1920 with the consent of the widow (their mother and natural guardian) and by court order. Petitioners filed the action only in 1938, over eighteen years later, and after the two instrumental witnesses had died. Casimiro Menente had attained majority about eight years prior to filing, and any cause of action he had was deemed prescribed. The defense of prescription was sustained.
No costs were awarded due to respondent’s non-appearance.