G.R. No. 193117 , November 26, 2014
HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANGEL LIWAGON AND FRANCISCA DUMALAGAN, namely: NARCISA LIWAGON-LAGANG, represented by her Heir VICTOR LIWAGON LAGANG, LEONCIO LIWAGON, represented by his Heir GERONIMA VDA. LIWAGON, and JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO represented by their Attorney-in-Fact and for herself, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF SPOUSES DEMETRIO LIWAGON AND REGINA LIWAGON, namely: RODRIGO LIWAGON, MINENCIA LIWAGONOMITTER, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-NUEVO, TERESITO LIWAGON and DANILO LIWAGON, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners and respondents are all children and grandchildren of the late spouses Angel and Francisca Liwagon. On June 4, 1957, Angel was provisionally awarded an 8.3004-hectare parcel of land (Lot No. 61) from the Y. Furukawa Plantation. He and his children cultivated and improved the land. Angel’s son Demetrio, together with his wife Regina, stayed with Angel and administered the property. Respondents, Demetrio’s children, helped with cultivation and the copra business. Angel later applied for and obtained final acquisition of the land by sale. After Angel’s death in 1978, petitioners demanded partition from Demetrio, who pleaded for deferment for economic reasons, to which petitioners acquiesced, allowing Demetrio’s family to continue occupying the land. Upon Demetrio’s and Regina’s deaths, petitioners again demanded partition from respondent Rodrigo, who refused, claiming ownership through a Deed of Sale dated July 24, 1972, purportedly executed by Angel in favor of Demetrio and Regina. Petitioners filed an action for annulment of the sale, partition, accounting, and damages, alleging the deed was simulated and Angel’s signature was forged. They argued the late spouses lacked financial capacity to purchase the land and that the signature on the deed differed from Angel’s signature on his sales application. Respondents defended the deed’s validity, presented tax receipts in Regina’s name, and claimed their family had occupied and cultivated the land since 1954. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, upholding the deed’s authenticity based on the presumption of regularity of notarized documents and finding petitioners’ evidence insufficient to prove forgery. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint, thereby upholding the validity of the Deed of Sale dated July 24, 1972, and rejecting petitioners’ claims of forgery and simulation.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that petitioners failed to present clear, convincing, and more than preponderant evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity and due execution accorded to the notarized Deed of Sale. The variance between Angel’s signature on the sales application and the deed, by itself, was not conclusive proof of forgery. The Court found no reversible error in the factual findings of the lower courts, which are generally binding on appeal. The petitioners’ allegations of the spouses’ lack of financial capacity and the deed’s non-registration were insufficient to nullify the document. The action for annulment based on forgery had not prescribed, as the deed was merely voidable and the prescriptive period had not lapsed from the time petitioners discovered the deed in 1994. However, on the merits, petitioners failed to discharge their burden of proving the deed was invalid.