G.R. No. 177235 July 7, 2014
SERCONSISION R. MENDOZA, Petitioner, vs. AURORA MENDOZA FERMIN, Respondent.

FACTS

Leonardo G. Mendoza died on November 25, 1986. In the testate proceedings of his estate, his legitimate and eldest daughter, respondent Aurora Mendoza Fermin, was appointed as one of the administratrices. In March 1989, petitioner Serconsision R. Mendoza, allegedly married to Leonardo, submitted an inventory of his properties, which included a parcel of land in Parañaque City. In 1990, respondent discovered that her father and petitioner had purportedly sold the property to Eduardo C. Sanchez through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 22, 1986, for ₱150,000.00. The deed was registered only on April 30, 1991. Petitioner continued to collect rentals from the property’s tenants even after the alleged sale. Respondent filed a case for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title and Damages, alleging that her father’s signature on the deed was forged. She presented an NBI Document Examiner who testified the signatures were not written by the same person, and a tenant who testified petitioner had forged Leonardo’s signature on other documents. Certifications showed the notary public who notarized the deed was not commissioned in Pasay City at that time. Petitioner denied forgery and presented a PNP Document Examiner who testified there was no forgery. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, finding no forgery and declaring the sale valid. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, declared the deed null and void, ordered the cancellation of the TCT in Sanchez’s name and revival of the previous TCT, declared the land part of Leonardo’s estate (his conjugal share), and ordered petitioner and Sanchez to pay attorney’s fees.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in setting aside the trial court’s findings of fact regarding the authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale and in reversing the trial court’s finding that the deed was valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The general rule that factual findings of the Court of Appeals are conclusive admits exceptions, such as when its findings are contrary to the trial court’s, as in this case. Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, with the burden on the party alleging it. The fact of forgery is established by comparing the alleged forged signature with genuine specimens. The Court of Appeals correctly conducted an independent examination of the signatures, which the trial court failed to do, and found the questioned signatures to be forgeries based on significant variances from the standard signatures. The appellate court also properly considered the suspicious circumstances surrounding the deed’s execution and registration, and petitioner’s continued collection of rentals. The deed, not being duly notarized due to the lack of commission of the notary public, did not enjoy the presumption of regularity and could not convey property. The Supreme Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals’ decision.