G.R. No. 125935 ; November 29, 2000
Carmelita P. Basilio, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, Spouses Simon Zablan, et al.

FACTS

Dionisio Z. Basilio owned two parcels of land in San Simon, Pampanga. Upon his death in 1988, his widow and children (petitioners) discovered that the titles to the lands had been transferred to the spouses Simon Zablan and Sonia Matias (respondents) based on two deeds of sale. The first deed was dated April 26, 1979, covering one lot. The second deed was dated March 19, 1987, covering both lots. Petitioners filed an action for annulment and reconveyance, alleging both deeds were spurious and that Dionisio’s signatures thereon were forgeries.
The respondents, in their answer, denied knowledge of the 1979 deed but asserted the validity of the 1987 deed. The Regional Trial Court annulled both deeds, finding the signatures forged based on handwriting expert testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court regarding the 1987 deed, declaring it genuine and binding, while annulling the 1979 deed as even the respondents denied its authenticity. Petitioners elevated the case, contesting the appellate court’s finding on the 1987 deed.

ISSUE

Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 19, 1987, is genuine and valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Court of Appeals, and reinstated the trial court’s decision annulling the 1987 deed. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in forgery cases and the weight of a notarized document’s presumption of regularity. While a notarized document enjoys the presumption of due execution, this presumption is not absolute and can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The party alleging forgery bears the burden of proving it.
In this case, the petitioners successfully discharged this burden. They presented clear and convincing evidence, including the testimony of National Bureau of Investigation handwriting experts who found fundamental differences between the questioned signature and Dionisio’s genuine specimens. Family members familiar with his signature also testified to the forgery, with his wife specifically stating Dionisio was too ill in 1987 to personally execute such a document. The Court conducted its own visual examination and found the signatures patently dissimilar.
Conversely, the respondents’ evidence to support the deed’s authenticity was weak. The notary public could not confirm he knew Dionisio personally or recall where the document was executed, undermining his testimony on due execution. Therefore, the presumption of regularity attached to the notarized document was adequately rebutted. The Supreme Court, exercising its power to review factual findings when lower courts conflict, found the totality of evidence established the 1987 deed was forged. Consequently, the deed was declared null and void.