The Supreme Court has ruled that forgery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, not merely presumed. This case emphasizes that the burden of proof lies with the party alleging forgery, and the opinions of handwriting experts are not binding on courts. This decision reinforces the principle that notarized documents carry evidentiary weight, and challenges to their authenticity require substantial proof.

Land Dispute: Did Forged Signatures Void a Church’s Property Title?

This case, Nora T. Jimenez, et al. vs. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations, et al., G.R. No. 140472, revolves around a land dispute where petitioners, claiming ownership through inheritance, alleged that the Deed of Sale transferring the property to the respondent church contained forged signatures. The central legal question is whether the petitioners successfully proved the forgery of the signatures on the Deed of Sale, thereby invalidating the transfer of property and the church’s title.

The factual backdrop involves a property originally titled under Francisca Ciriaco, the mother of the petitioners. The United Church of Christ in the Philippines (UCCP) claimed ownership based on a Deed of Sale purportedly executed by Francisca Ciriaco and her husband, Nicanor Teodoro, in 1936, transferring the property to the Board of Foreign Missions. Petitioners contested this, asserting their parents’ signatures were forged. The trial court initially dismissed the case based on prescription and laches, but the Court of Appeals (CA) remanded the case for resolution of the forgery issue. After remand, the trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the Deed of Sale and the UCCP’s title null and void due to forgery.

However, the CA reversed the trial court’s decision, leading to the Supreme Court review. The CA questioned the trial court’s reliance on the findings of handwriting experts from the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the Philippine Constabulary (PC) Crime Laboratory, noting that the sample signatures used for comparison were either photocopies or dated far from the 1936 Deed of Sale. The appellate court conducted its own examination of the signatures, concluding there was no substantial evidence of forgery, and upheld the validity of the Deed of Sale and the UCCP’s title.

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing the principle that factual findings of trial courts are generally respected, but appellate courts can intervene when the factual findings of lower courts conflict. The Court noted that since the CA had the same opportunity to examine the documents, the usual deference to the trial court’s findings did not apply. The Supreme Court underscored that the opinions of handwriting experts are not binding on courts, especially when the issue involves mere handwriting similarity, which can be determined through visual comparison.

“A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny.”

Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery. The Court found that the petitioners failed to meet this burden, and the CA correctly determined that the signatures on the Deed of Sale were not forged. The fact that the Deed of Sale was a notarized document further supported its validity, as such documents carry evidentiary weight under Philippine law.

The Court also considered the petitioners’ delay in filing the complaint, only doing so in 1982, decades after the Deed of Sale was executed in 1936 and the church was built on the property. This delay detracted from their credibility. The Supreme Court agreed with the CA’s independent assessment of the signatures, noting that the dissimilarities cited by the petitioners were natural variations expected in genuine signatures, rather than indicia of forgery.

In analyzing the evidence presented by the petitioners, the Supreme Court highlighted the limitations of the handwriting experts’ reports. The Court agreed with the CA’s assessment that the sample signatures used by the experts were not contemporaneous with the questioned Deed of Sale, thus reducing the reliability of their conclusions. Moreover, the Court reiterated that the authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue, and judges can and should exercise independent judgment on the matter.

The Supreme Court also addressed the petitioners’ claim that the CA disregarded the principle of preponderance of evidence. The Court held that the preponderance of evidence is determined by the quality, not the quantity, of witnesses. The notarized Deed of Sale, along with the CA’s independent assessment of the signatures and the petitioners’ delay in filing the complaint, constituted sufficient evidence to support the CA’s decision.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the petitioners successfully proved that the signatures on the 1936 Deed of Sale were forged, thus invalidating the transfer of property to the church.
What is the standard of proof for forgery?	Forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging forgery.
Are courts bound by the opinions of handwriting experts?	No, courts are not bound by the opinions of handwriting experts. Judges can and should exercise independent judgment on the authenticity of signatures.
What evidentiary weight is given to notarized documents?	Notarized documents carry evidentiary weight, and the certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of the execution of the instrument.
What is the significance of delay in filing a complaint alleging forgery?	Delay in filing a complaint alleging forgery can detract from the credibility of the party making the allegation.
How do courts determine preponderance of evidence?	Preponderance of evidence is determined by the quality, not the quantity, of witnesses.
Can courts overturn factual findings of trial courts?	Yes, appellate courts can overturn factual findings of trial courts when the findings conflict and when the appellate court has the same opportunity to examine the evidence.
What factors are considered when examining a questioned signature?	Factors include spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, and shades. The position of the writer, condition of the writing surface, state of mind, and type of pen and paper used are also considered.

This case serves as a reminder that allegations of forgery must be substantiated with strong evidence, and the courts will independently assess the authenticity of signatures, considering all relevant factors. The decision reinforces the security of notarized transactions and the importance of timely action in asserting one’s rights.

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: NORA T. JIMENEZ, ET AL. VS. COMMISSION ON ECUMENICAL MISSION AND RELATIONS, ET AL., G.R. No. 140472, June 10, 2002