G.R. No. 191278 . March 29, 2023.
Municipality of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, Mayor Bartolome Ramos and Members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Sta. Maria, Bulacan, Petitioners, vs. Carlos A. Buenaventura, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Carlos A. Buenaventura, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Barangay Guyong, Sta. Maria, Bulacan, filed a complaint for sum of money and damages against the petitioners. He alleged that without his knowledge and consent, the petitioners took possession and constructed a road on approximately 998.75 square meters of his property. Upon discovery, he demanded the removal of the road. Meetings between the respondent and Mayor Ramos led to a draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) where the respondent agreed to allow the petitioners to use the property until 2004, after which the petitioners committed to return it in its original condition. However, the Sangguniang Bayan refused to authorize Mayor Ramos to sign the MOA via Kapasiyahan Bilang 2002-112, finding it beneficial only to the respondent, prompting the complaint.
The petitioners moved to dismiss, arguing the complaint had no cause of action because the land belonged to Barangay Guyong by virtue of a Deed of Donation executed by the respondent. The RTC dismissed the complaint, holding the notarized Deed of Donation was a public document admissible without further proof and valid until annulled in a proper proceeding, and that the petitioners acted in good faith. The CA reversed the RTC, ruling the petitioners failed to prove the Deed of Donation was authentic and the respondent’s signature was genuine. The CA found the respondent’s signature was forged based on a visual comparison with his signature on the complaint and his demand letter, and because the Kapasiyahan implied recognition of his ownership. The CA ordered the petitioners to remove the road, restore the property, and pay rentals. The petitioners sought reconsideration, which was denied.

ISSUE

Whether the subject Deed of Donation is valid and sufficient to support the petitioners’ construction on the subject premises.

RULING

The Supreme Court ruled the petition was partly meritorious. It affirmed with modifications the CA Decision and Resolution. The Court held that forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden rests on the party alleging forgery. After an independent examination, the Court agreed with the CA that the respondent’s signature on the Deed of Donation was a forgery, as a visual comparison with his signatures on the complaint and demand letter showed patent dissimilarities, and the Kapasiyahan implied recognition of his ownership. Since the donation was ineffectual, there was a taking of the respondent’s property. However, recovery of possession was no longer feasible as a road had been constructed. In the interest of justice and to prevent irreparable injury, the Court ordered payment of just compensation equivalent to the fair market value at the time of taking on April 11, 2002, with legal interest, instead of removal of the road and payment of rentals. The Court also awarded exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. The case was remanded to the RTC for determination of just compensation.