G.R. No.
216491, August 23, 2017
THE HEIRS OF PETER DONTON, THROUGH THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, FELIPE G.
CAPULONG, Petitioners, v. DUANE STIER AND EMILY MAGGAY, Respondents.
Facts:
1. While Donton was in the United States, he discovered that herein respondents took possession and
control of the subject property, as well as the management of his business operating thereat. Thus,
Donton was forced to return to the Philippines, where he learned that respondents, through alleged
fraudulent means, were able to transfer the ownership of the subject property in their names.
2. Hence, he filed the instant complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance of property with
damages against respondents and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City, alleging that the signature
on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 2001, by virtue of which he purportedly sold the subject
property to respondents, was a forgery.
Issue: Whether the petitioners sufficiently proved the existence of forgery.
Ruling: No.
Forgery, as a rule, cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery - in this case, petitioners. The fact of
forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic
and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.
Pertinently, Section 22, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court provides::
Section. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The handwriting of a person may be proved by any
witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has
seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus
acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be
given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine
by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the
judge.
To prove forgery, petitioners offered in evidence the findings and testimony given by expert
witness Perez, who declared that she found "significant divergences in the manner of execution, line
quality, stroke structure and other individual handwriting characteristics" between the signature that
appears on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the standard signatures of Donton, thereby concluding that
they were not written by one and the same person. On cross-examination, however, Perez admitted that
she had no actual knowledge of the source of the specimen signatures given to her for examination, as it
was the CIDG personnel who provided her with the same. Thus, as the CA correctly observed, Perez's
findings deserve little or no probative weight at all, considering that the signatures which she used for
comparison came from an unverified source. Perforce, petitioners are left with no conclusive evidence to
prove their allegation that Donton's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged.
G.R. No. 222614, March 20, 2019
HEIR OF PASTORA T. CARDENAS AND EUSTAQUIO CARDENAS, NAMELY REMEDIOS
CARDENAS-TUMLOS, REPRESENTED BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT JANET TUMLOS-QUIZON,
PETITIONER, v. THE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE CHURCHES OF THE
PHILIPPINES, INC., REPRESENTED BY REO REPOLLO AND LEOCADIO DUQUE, JR.,
RESPONDENT.
Facts:
1. In her Complaint, Janet alleged that her mother Remedios is the heir of the late [Sps. Cardenas],
who are the registered owners of Lot 90, Psd-37322, with an area of 410 square meters, located at
Poblacion 6, Midsayap, Cotabato [(subject property)], covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. T-6097 and Tax Declaration No. K-019938 with a [m]arket [v]alue of P550,220.00; and
that the subject property is adjacent to Lot 3924-A, Psd-12-013791 owned by CAMACOP where
its church is located and constructed.
2. Janet further alleged that sometime in the year 1962, CAMACOP unlawfully occupied the subject
property for their church activities and functions; that CAMACOP continues to unlawfully
occupy the subject property to the damage and prejudice of [Janet]; that their repeated oral and
written demands fell on deaf ears; and that CAMACOP failed to accede to the demands and
continues to occupy the subject property. Thus, her mother Remedios, through her, was
constrained to file the case before the court a quo.
Issue: Whether the documentary evidence of CAMACOP were properly authenticated.
Ruling: No, the documents were not properly authenticated. All of CAMACOP's documentary evidence,
from Exhibits 1 to 11, were identified and authenticated by its first witness, Repollo, who is a member of
CAMACOP.
According to Section 20, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules on Evidence before any private document offered
as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by (a)
anyone who saw the document executed or written or (b) by evidence of the genuineness of the signature
or handwriting of the maker.
In the instant case, it is readily admitted that Repollo did not personally witness the execution of any of
the documents he identified. In fact, Repollo testified that these documents were merely turned over to
him by his mother.38 Nor was Repollo knowledgeable as to the genuineness of the signatures or
handwritings found in the documents. Truth be told, Repollo had no participation and knowledge
whatsoever as to the preparation, execution, and authenticity of the documents he identified. Otherwise
stated, Repollo was totally incompetent to present and testify on these documents. Hence, without proper
identification and authentication, the documentary evidence of CAMACOP should not have been
admitted into evidence by the RTC.
Thus, without any copy of the purported Deed of Sale and any authentic document containing a recital of
the contents of the purported Deed of Sale, CAMACOP should have provided a credible, convincing
witness to prove the existence and contents of the purported Deed of Sale.
