In the Philippines, a forged signature on a property deed renders the sale null and void, offering no legal title to the buyer. This ruling underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents in property transactions and safeguards the rights of the original owner against fraudulent transfers. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasizes that even if a forged deed is registered and a new title is issued, the original owner does not lose their rights to the property, and the fraudulent buyer gains no legal claim.

Family Feud: When a Forged Deed Threatens Inheritance

This case, Spouses Patricio and Myrna Bernales v. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, revolves around a land dispute within a family in Cagayan de Oro City. The core issue is the authenticity of a Deed of Absolute Sale, which the respondents claimed was forged. The respondents, who are the heirs of Julian Sambaan, filed a complaint seeking to annul the deed and cancel the transfer certificate of title obtained by the petitioners, Spouses Bernales, who are Julian’s daughter and her husband. The respondents alleged that the signatures of their parents, Julian and Guillerma Sambaan, on the deed were forged, leading to the illegal transfer of the property.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the respondents, declaring the transfer certificate of title null and void. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC’s decision, prompting the petitioners to elevate the case to the Supreme Court. The petitioners argued that the respondents’ action was barred by prescription, the expert testimony on the forgery was inadequate, and the lower courts erred in their handwriting comparison analysis. They also pointed to an agreement between Patricio Bernales and Domingo Ebarrat, a previous co-owner of the land, as evidence supporting the validity of the sale.

The Supreme Court (SC) emphasized that the authenticity of the Deed of Absolute Sale is a question of fact, and the factual findings of the lower courts are generally accorded great weight. The SC found substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the signatures on the deed were indeed forged. The NBI Senior Document Examiner, Caroline Moldez Pitoy, testified that after conducting comparative examinations, she found that the signatures of Julian and Guillerma Sambaan on the Deed of Absolute Sale were not written by the same persons who signed the standard specimen signatures. The SC cited Pitoy’s testimony:

After [conducting] comparative examinations x x x on the standard specimen signatures of Julian Sambaan [and Guillerma Sambaan] as well as the x x x questioned x x x signatures x x x we found out that [they were] not written by one and the same person.

The Court noted that the petitioners failed to present any evidence to rebut the findings of the NBI handwriting expert. Additionally, the trial court observed, and the CA affirmed, that a simple examination of Guillerma’s questioned signature revealed significant differences in stroke and writing style compared to her specimen signatures. This observation further supported the conclusion of forgery. Emma S. Felicilda, daughter of the deceased Guillerma, testified that her mother initiated the complaint, asserting she had not signed the document. The Court stated that this observation confirmed the document was, indeed, forged:

even a cursory examination of Guillerma’s questioned signature from her specimen signatures in the enlarged photographs (Exhibits F’ and F-1′) would show that it needs no expert witness to notice the wide difference in stroke, as well as the writing style in capital G’.

The Supreme Court addressed the petitioners’ argument that the examination commissioned by the respondents was invalid. The SC clarified that the court has the discretion to determine the probative value of the examination results, regardless of who commissioned it. Citing Sali v. Abubakar, the Court emphasized that the purpose of such an examination is to assist the court in settling issues related to the documents. The SC stated the importance of the courts authority over the document regardless of who asked for it initially.

x x x Its purpose is, presumably, to assist the court having jurisdiction over said litigations, in the performance of its duty to settle correctly the issue relative to said documents. Even a non-expert private individual may examine the same, if there are facts within his knowledge which may help the courts in the determination of said issue. Such examination, which may properly be undertaken by a non-expert private individual, does not, certainly, become null and void when the examiner is an expert and/or an officer of the NBI.

The Court also dismissed the petitioners’ claim that the handwriting comparisons violated Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. The SC noted that the respondents were not presenting evidence to authenticate a private document but were challenging the signatures’ authenticity. The SC emphasized that the party was not trying to pass off a fraudulent document as real, but rather disprove its validity.

The Court highlighted several circumstances that supported the finding of forgery. Julian Sambaan had requested his children to redeem the property from the petitioners, and Absalon Sambaan had offered to do so, but the petitioners refused. Myrna Bernales admitted she was not present when her parents allegedly signed the deed. Guillerma Sambaan, who purportedly signed the deed, joined the respondents in filing the action for annulment. The Court also found it peculiar that Guillerma’s signature appeared on the deed, even though it was not legally required since the property was Julian’s capital. The Court stated that since it was not required, then why was it there? This observation underscored the lack of validity:

x x x If such was the case, we are in a query why the signature of GUILLERMA must have to be forged when her consent, as spouse of JULIAN, is not necessary to the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale? The answer to this is simple: JULIAN never executed the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of MYRNA and such deed conveys no ownership in favor of the appellants.

Having determined that the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged, the Supreme Court addressed the validity of the transfer of title to the petitioners. Citing Sps. Solivel v. Judge Francisco, the Court reiterated that a forged instrument does not convey any right or title to the property, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate certificate of title. In order to protect property rights, this ruling must be upheld, especially with real property:

x x x in order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. When the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property.

The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the respondents’ action was barred by prescription. The petitioners cited Article 1454 of the Civil Code, arguing that an implied trust was created, and the respondents’ right to reconveyance had prescribed. The Court sided with the respondents’ argument that the forgery meant the absence of consent, rendering the deed null and void under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. Article 1410 states that an action to declare the inexistence of void contracts does not prescribe. Therefore, this is a permanent and incurable defect:

the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe

The Supreme Court upheld the award of moral damages and attorney’s fees to the respondents. The Court acknowledged the blood relations among the parties and the emotional distress caused by the forgery. The Court also considered Julian’s dying wish for the property to be redeemed. Given the complexity of the case and the multiple levels of appeal, the Court deemed the award of P20,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees, and P1,671.00 as actual damages appropriate.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Deed of Absolute Sale was authentic or forged, which would determine the validity of the transfer of property ownership.
What did the NBI’s handwriting expert conclude?	The NBI Senior Document Examiner concluded that the signatures of Julian and Guillerma Sambaan on the Deed of Absolute Sale were not written by the same persons who signed their standard specimen signatures.
Why did the court disregard the petitioners’ argument about prescription?	The court determined that because the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged, it was considered void from the beginning, and actions to declare void contracts do not prescribe under Article 1410 of the Civil Code.
What is the effect of a forged deed on property ownership?	A forged deed is null and void and does not transfer any rights or title to the property, even if the deed is registered and a new title is issued.
What was the basis for awarding moral damages in this case?	The court awarded moral damages due to the emotional distress and anger caused by the forgery, especially considering the family relations among the parties and Julian’s dying wish.
Did the court find the Agreement between Domingo and Patricio to be relevant?	The court deemed the Agreement irrelevant because it did not justify or validate the forgery committed in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
What Article of the Civil Code did the Supreme Court use?	The Supreme Court used Article 1410 which provides that an action to declare the inexistence of void contracts does not prescribe.
Who was favored to win the case?	The Heirs of Julian Sambaan, the respondents, were favored to win the case.

This case serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents in property transactions. Forged documents carry no legal weight and cannot transfer property rights. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the protection afforded to property owners against fraudulent transfers, ensuring that their rights are upheld even in cases of forgery.

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: Spouses Patricio and Myrna Bernales, Petitioners, vs. Heirs of Julian Sambaan, G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010