G.R. No. 172167 ; July 9, 2008
SOLEDAD E. DIZON, et al., Petitioners, vs. RODRIGO G. TUAZON and ESTRELLA M. TUAZON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are the heirs of Segundo Espinosa, who owned a one-half undivided share in two parcels of land in Tarlac. Segundo cohabited with Laureana Bondoc, with whom he sired respondent Estrella Tuazon. In 1988, petitioner Soledad Dizon, Segundo’s daughter, discovered that the titles to the properties were already in the names of respondents Estrella and Rodrigo Tuazon. Respondents presented a Deed of Absolute Sale and an Affidavit of Non-tenancy, both dated 1985, and an Agreement of Subdivision dated 1990, all purportedly signed by Segundo, conveying his share to them. Segundo, however, claimed he was tricked and that his signatures were forged. He consulted the notary public, Atty. Conrado Genilo, who stated he merely notarized documents prepared by his secretary. Segundo initiated a barangay complaint and prepared a court complaint for annulment but died in 1995 before filing it. Petitioners subsequently filed the complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and damages.
Respondents claimed the sale was legitimate. They asserted that Segundo sought their financial help to prevent foreclosure of a bank mortgage on the properties and, in return, promised to transfer his share to Estrella. They alleged Segundo voluntarily executed the 1985 Deed of Sale and the 1990 Agreement of Subdivision to effect the conveyance.

ISSUE

Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale, Affidavit of Non-tenancy, and Agreement of Subdivision are null and void due to the forgery of Segundo Espinosa’s signature.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, declaring the documents null and void. The legal logic centered on the burden of proof in forgery allegations and the evaluation of evidence. While the Court of Appeals found petitioners failed to prove forgery by preponderance of evidence, the Supreme Court, exercising its power to review factual issues due to conflicting lower court findings, held otherwise.
The Court emphasized that a notarized document enjoys the presumption of regularity, but this presumption is disputable and may be overcome by clear and convincing evidence. Here, petitioners presented sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption. Critical was the testimony of the notary public, Atty. Genilo, who admitted he did not personally ascertain Segundo’s identity or witness the signing, thereby undermining the document’s authenticity. Furthermore, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) report, though inconclusive due to insufficient standard signatures, noted discrepancies that cast doubt on the signatures. This, coupled with the testimony of Segundo’s grandson and the barangay records showing Segundo had contested the signatures early on, collectively established the forgery. The Court found respondents’ claim of a valid sale inconsistent with the fact that petitioners remained in possession and collected rentals from the land tenants after the alleged sale. Thus, petitioners successfully proved the forgery, warranting the annulment of the disputed documents.