In cases involving allegations of forgery in property transactions, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the presumption of regularity for notarized documents, placing the burden of proof squarely on the party claiming forgery. This means that a notarized deed of sale is presumed valid unless the party alleging forgery can present clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence to the contrary. This ruling highlights the importance of proper documentation and the weight given to notarized documents in Philippine law, providing a clear standard for resolving disputes involving property rights.

Conflicting Expert Opinions: Can a Deed of Absolute Sale Be Invalidated by Disputed Signatures?

This case revolves around a property dispute between Spouses Peblia and Prosperous Alfaro (petitioners) and Spouses Olegario and Cecilia Bagano (respondents). The respondents filed a complaint seeking to nullify a Deed of Absolute Sale, claiming that their signatures on the document were forged. The petitioners, on the other hand, maintained the validity of the sale, asserting that the respondents had willingly sold the property to them. The central issue before the Supreme Court was whether the respondents successfully proved that their signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were indeed forged, thereby invalidating the transaction.

The respondents presented a handwriting expert, Romeo Varona, who initially testified that the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were forged. However, during cross-examination, Varona examined another copy of the deed and concluded that the signatures were genuine. This conflicting testimony led the trial court to rule in favor of the petitioners, upholding the validity of the sale. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision, finding that the expert’s initial testimony of forgery was not effectively retracted, thus casting doubt on the deed’s authenticity.

The Supreme Court, in analyzing the conflicting findings, emphasized the principle that when a document is executed in multiple copies at the same time with identical contents, all such copies are considered originals. In this case, both copies of the Deed of Absolute Sale presented by the parties held equal weight. The Court noted the inconsistency in the expert’s testimony, where he deemed one copy of the deed to contain forged signatures while attesting to the genuineness of the signatures on the other copy. This inconsistency, according to the Supreme Court, rendered the expert’s testimony unconvincing, thus failing to overcome the presumption of validity afforded to notarized documents.

The presumption of regularity for notarized documents is a cornerstone of Philippine law. As the Court reiterated, such documents carry significant evidentiary weight and are presumed to be duly executed. This presumption can only be overturned by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. The Supreme Court has consistently held that:

Absent evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant, the presumption must be upheld.

The respondents’ reliance on the expert’s testimony, which was ultimately deemed unreliable, fell short of meeting this high evidentiary standard. Even though the expert made conflicting conclusions, the court emphasizes the party alleging forgery have the burden of proof, as stated in the case of Herbon v. Palad, G.R. No. 149542, 20 July 2006; Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125283, 10 February 2006, 482 SCRA 164; R.F. Navarro & Co., Inc. v. Hon. Vailoces, 413 Phil. 432 (2001):

Forgery is not presumed; it must be proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Those who make the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving it.

Building on this principle, the Supreme Court underscored that forgery must be proven, not merely alleged. The burden of proof rests on the party claiming forgery to present sufficient evidence to substantiate their claim. The Court also noted that the respondents failed to present additional evidence, such as rebuttal witnesses or another expert witness, to bolster their claim of forgery. The failure to provide such corroborating evidence further weakened their case.

Moreover, the Court gave weight to the petitioner’s testimony that she witnessed one of the respondents affix his signature on the document. The court highlighted the fact that even though the expert testified that they believed one copy of the Deed was not forged, the burden of proof rests on those claiming the signature was forged. The Supreme Court further noted the principle that positive testimony generally outweighs negative testimony, particularly when coupled with the presumption of regularity afforded to notarized documents. In this case, the petitioner’s positive assertion, along with the notarized document, created a strong presumption in favor of the deed’s validity.

Considering all these factors, the Supreme Court concluded that the respondents failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the integrity of notarized documents and the need for clear and convincing evidence to challenge their authenticity. Therefore, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ decision and reinstated the trial court’s ruling, thereby upholding the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and affirming the petitioners’ ownership of the property.

This case provides a crucial lesson on the evidentiary requirements for proving forgery and the legal weight afforded to notarized documents. It underscores the need for parties alleging forgery to present compelling evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity. The decision also highlights the potential pitfalls of relying solely on expert testimony, particularly when such testimony is inconsistent or unreliable.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the respondents presented sufficient evidence to prove that their signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were forged, thereby invalidating the document.
What is the legal principle regarding notarized documents?	Notarized documents are presumed to be valid and duly executed. This presumption can only be overturned by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence of forgery.
Who has the burden of proving forgery?	The party alleging forgery has the burden of proving it by presenting sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity afforded to notarized documents.
What role did the handwriting expert play in this case?	The handwriting expert’s testimony was inconsistent, as he initially stated the signatures were forged but later stated they were genuine, undermining the credibility of his opinion.
Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of the petitioners?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the petitioners because the respondents failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the presumption of validity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.
What type of evidence is needed to prove forgery?	Forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Mere variance in signatures is not enough to prove forgery conclusively.
What is the significance of multiple copies of a document?	When a document is executed in multiple copies at the same time with identical contents, all such copies are considered originals and hold equal weight.
What could the respondents have done differently in this case?	The respondents could have presented additional evidence, such as rebuttal witnesses or another expert witness, to corroborate their claim of forgery and overcome the presumption of regularity.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of clear and convincing evidence when challenging the validity of notarized documents. The presumption of regularity remains a powerful legal principle, and parties alleging forgery must meet a high evidentiary threshold to overcome it. This ruling reinforces the stability and reliability of property transactions in the Philippines, ensuring that notarized deeds are given the weight they deserve.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: SPS. PEBLIA ALFARO AND PROSPEROUS ALFARO, PETITIONERS, VS. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS. OLEGARIO P. BAGANO AND CECILIA C. BAGANO RESPONDENTS, G.R. NO. 162864, March 28, 2007