G.R. No. 189647 ; February 6, 2012
NANCY T. LORZANO, Petitioner, vs. JUAN TABAYAG, JR., Respondent.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land owned by the late Juan Tabayag. After his death, his children, including petitioner Nancy Lorzano and respondent Juan Tabayag, Jr., were set to inherit the property. Lorzano claimed sole ownership, presenting a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 25, 1992, purportedly executed by their father in her favor. She subsequently obtained a free patent and an Original Certificate of Title for the land. Tabayag, Jr. filed a complaint for annulment of document and reconveyance, alleging the deed was a forgery. He pointed out glaring discrepancies in the signature and noted the document was notarized by an individual who was never a duly commissioned notary public for the locality.
The Regional Trial Court declared the deed null and void, ordered reconveyance of the property to the heirs of Juan Tabayag, and awarded moral damages and attorney’s fees to Tabayag, Jr. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. Lorzano elevated the case to the Supreme Court, arguing that a handwriting expert was indispensable to prove forgery, that an action for reconveyance was improper as her title was derived from a free patent, and that the awards for damages were unjustified.

ISSUE

The issues are: (1) whether the lower courts erred in declaring the deed of sale null without expert handwriting testimony; (2) whether an action for reconveyance is the proper remedy; and (3) whether the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees is proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the lower courts’ rulings with modification on the amount of damages. On the first issue, the Court held that expert testimony on handwriting is not mandatory. Forgery can be established by a mere comparison of signatures, as done by the trial court, especially when the questioned document suffers from other fatal defects. Here, the deed was notarized by a non-commissioned notary, rendering it an unsigned private document with no probative value. Thus, its nullity was correctly declared.
On the second issue, the Court ruled that an action for reconveyance is proper. A free patent procured through fraud or misrepresentation does not become indefeasible. Lorzano’s title, based on a void deed, was acquired in bad faith. Reconveyance is the remedy to correct a trust implied by law, compelling the holder of an erroneous title to transfer the property to its rightful owners. This action does not aim to nullify the Torrens title but to show that the person named as owner is merely a trustee for the benefit of the real owner.
On the third issue, the Court sustained the award of moral damages but reduced the amount to Thirty Thousand Pesos (₱30,000.00), finding the original award excessive. The award was justified as Lorzano’s fraudulent act caused mental anguish to her sibling. Attorney’s fees were also properly awarded as Tabayag, Jr. was compelled to litigate to protect his interest.