G.R. No. 179874, June 22, 2015.
ADELFA DIO TOLENTINO, VIRGINIA DIO, RENATO DIO, and HEIRS OF ROBERTO DIO, represented by ROGER DIO, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES MARIA JERERA AND EBON LATAGAN, substituted by his heirs, namely: MA. JANELITA LATAGAN-BULAWAN, YVONNE LATAGAN, LESLIE LATAGAN, RODOLFO H. LATAGAN, EMMANUEL NOEL H. LATAGAN, GEMMA LATAGAN-DE LEON, MARIE GLEN LATAGAN-CERUJALES, and CELESTE LATAGAN-BO; and SALVE VDA. DE JERERA, Respondents.

FACTS

The subject property is Lot No. 3789, covered by OCT No. 12494 issued in 1931 in the names of six co-owners who inherited it from Guillermo Jerera. On June 27, 1933, four of these co-owners (Servillano, Dionisia, Teofilo, and Cipriano Jerera) sold the property with a right to repurchase to Amado Dio via an “Escritura de Venta Con Pacto de Retro.” The period to repurchase was two years. On December 4, 1935, Amado sold a 1,890 square-meter portion of the land to Flora Girao, wife of Servillano. On December 7, 1967, Amado executed an affidavit consolidating his ownership, as the vendors did not repurchase the property. He declared the property in his name under Tax Dec. No. 9273. On January 14, 1970, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, purportedly by Spouses Amado Dio and Modesta Domer, conveying the property to Servillano Jerera for ₱585.00. Servillano then declared it in his name. On May 25, 1971, Servillano sold the property to his daughter, respondent Maria Jerera Latagan. On November 24, 1977, Servillano executed another Deed of Absolute Sale of the same property to Maria and a Self-Adjudication of Real Property, claiming to be the sole surviving co-owner. Subsequently, OCT No. 1249 was cancelled and TCT No. T-15364 was issued in Servillano’s name, which was then cancelled and TCT No. T-15365 was issued in Maria’s name. The lot was later subdivided into several lots under Maria’s name. Petitioners, as successors-in-interest of Amado Dio, filed a complaint for quieting of title, alleging that the January 14, 1970 Deed of Sale from Amado to Servillano was simulated and a forgery, making all subsequent transactions void. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the 1970 deed void, finding Amado’s signature forged, and declaring petitioners as lawful owners. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision and in dismissing petitioners’ complaint for quieting of title.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that petitioners failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the January 14, 1970 Deed of Absolute Sale was a forgery. The National Bureau of Investigation document examiner’s findings, which concluded the signature was forged, were deemed insufficient and unreliable because the standard specimens used for comparison (signatures on a sanitary permit and a community tax certificate) were not proven to be the authentic signatures of Amado Dio. The Court emphasized that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Furthermore, the Court found that respondents and their predecessors-in-interest had been in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property in the concept of an owner for more than thirty years, which petitioners never opposed. The Court also noted that the property was registered under the Torrens system in the names of respondents, and petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of regularity in the notarization of the 1970 deed. Thus, petitioners’ action for quieting of title had no basis.