G.R. No. 205681 , July 1, 2015
Janet Carbonell, Petitioner, vs. Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes, represented by her brother and attorney-in-fact, Virgilio A. Carbonell, Respondent.

FACTS

Respondent Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes, a permanent resident of Canada, filed a complaint against Spouses Bonifacio and Janet Carbonell (petitioner) and the Rural Bank of Bayambang, Pangasinan. She sought the declaration of nullity of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 2, 1997, which purported to sell her residential land in Rosales, Pangasinan, covered by TCT No. T-45306, to the Spouses Carbonell, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. T-51120 in their names. Respondent alleged the sale was fictitious and her signature was forged, as she was in Canada when the deed was executed. She discovered the forgery in December 2005. The Rural Bank was later dropped from the case after the mortgage was paid. During trial, respondent presented evidence, including her passport showing she was abroad and a comparison of her genuine signatures with the forged one on the deed. Her mother testified that the Spouses Carbonell had custody of the title. Petitioner claimed she and her husband bought the property from Juanita Tulio but failed to present any documentary evidence, such as receipts, to substantiate the purchase. Another witness, Julieta Sanchez Mariano, testified she sold the property to the Spouses Carbonell, but her testimony was contradicted by annotations on her title showing a sale to respondent.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the Regional Trial Court’s finding that the signature of respondent on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The petition raised a question of fact regarding the forgery, which is not permissible in a Rule 45 petition for review, as such petitions should raise only questions of law. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the lower courts, which were supported by evidence. The Court of Appeals correctly upheld the RTC’s determination that the deed was fictitious due to the forged signature, established by the clear differences between the signature on the deed and respondent’s genuine signatures, and by respondent’s proven absence from the Philippines on the date of the purported execution. The claim of a separate purchase by the Spouses Carbonell was unsupported by evidence. Thus, the Deed of Absolute Sale was declared null and void, TCT No. T-51120 was invalidated, and TCT No. T-45306 in respondent’s name was ordered restored.