ASG Law

Tag: Signature Verification

  • Forged Signatures and Property Rights: Protecting Land Ownership from Fraud

    The Supreme Court ruled that a forged signature on a Deed of Absolute Sale renders the document fictitious and invalid, thereby protecting the rightful owner’s property rights. This decision underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of signatures in property transactions. The court emphasized that a forged document cannot transfer ownership, and the original titleholder retains full rights to the property. This ruling safeguards individuals from losing their property due to fraudulent transactions, reinforcing the integrity of land titles and the legal system.

    Dubious Deeds: Can a Forged Signature Steal Your Land?

    This case revolves around a dispute between Janet Carbonell and her sister-in-law, Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes, concerning a property in Rosales, Pangasinan. Julita, a resident of Canada, claimed that her signature on a Deed of Absolute Sale, which transferred ownership of her property to Janet and her husband Bonifacio Carbonell, was forged. The central legal question is whether this alleged forgery invalidates the transfer of property and restores Julita’s original title.

    The factual backdrop reveals that Julita acquired the property in 1994, with her mother holding the title. When her mother moved to Canada, the Spouses Carbonell requested custody of the title. Subsequently, a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 2, 1997, purportedly signed by Julita, transferred the property to the Spouses Carbonell. However, Julita asserted that she was in Canada when this deed was supposedly executed, and her signature was a forgery. This assertion formed the crux of her complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Annulment of Title, Reconveyance, Recovery of Possession and Ownership, Declaration of Bad Faith of Mortgage Bank and Damages against Spouses Carbonell and the Rural Bank of Bayambang, Pangasinan.

    The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both ruled in favor of Julita, finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale was indeed fictitious due to the forged signature. The CA highlighted that Janet failed to specifically deny the forgery allegation, which, under the rules of procedure, is deemed an admission. Moreover, the courts compared Julita’s signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale with her genuine signatures on her passport, citizenship card, and other documents, noting significant differences. The RTC decision emphasized the discrepancies in handwriting strokes, shapes, and sizes of letters, leading to the conclusion that Julita did not sign the questioned document.

    The Supreme Court (SC) affirmed the CA’s decision, emphasizing that it is not a trier of facts and generally limits itself to reviewing errors of law. The Court cited Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, which states:

    “The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.”

    However, the SC also acknowledged exceptions to this rule, none of which applied in this case. The Court deferred to the factual findings of the lower courts, which were consistent in their determination of forgery.

    The SC highlighted the methods of proving the genuineness of handwriting, as outlined in Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. This section allows for comparison of questioned handwriting with admitted genuine specimens. The Court also cited the case of Spouses Estacio v. Dr. Jaranilla, stating:

    “It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand… Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting ‘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.’”

    In this case, Julita presented various documents with her genuine signature, enabling the courts to make a well-supported comparison.

    The implications of this decision are significant for property law and the protection of landowners’ rights. The ruling reinforces the principle that a forged document is void and cannot transfer ownership. It underscores the importance of due diligence in property transactions and the need to verify the authenticity of signatures. This case also serves as a reminder of the legal remedies available to individuals who have been victims of forgery and fraudulent property transfers. Furthermore, the ruling clarifies the role of the courts in determining forgery and the admissibility of evidence for comparison of handwriting.

    This decision aligns with established jurisprudence on the nullity of forged documents. In numerous cases, the Supreme Court has consistently held that a forged deed is without any force or effect and cannot be the basis for the transfer of property rights. This principle is rooted in the fundamental concept that consent is essential for a valid contract, and a forged signature cannot constitute valid consent.

    Building on this principle, the ruling emphasizes the probative value of comparing signatures and the admissibility of various documents as evidence of genuine signatures. The Court’s reliance on Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, provides a clear framework for establishing forgery in court. This framework empowers individuals to present evidence of their genuine signatures and allows the courts to make informed decisions based on visual comparisons.

    In practical terms, this case highlights the importance of safeguarding original property titles and regularly monitoring property records for any unauthorized transfers. Landowners should be vigilant in protecting their property rights and should seek legal advice if they suspect any fraudulent activity. This ruling reinforces the protection afforded to property owners against fraudulent transfers, ensuring that property rights are not easily compromised by forged documents.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a forged signature on a Deed of Absolute Sale invalidated the transfer of property from Julita Carbonell-Mendes to Spouses Bonifacio and Janet Carbonell.
    What did the court decide? The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, ruling that the forged signature rendered the Deed of Absolute Sale fictitious and invalid, thereby restoring Julita’s ownership of the property.
    What evidence was used to prove the forgery? The evidence included Julita’s passports, citizenship card, driver’s license, and other documents with her genuine signature, which were compared to the signature on the disputed Deed of Absolute Sale.
    What is the legal basis for the court’s decision? The decision is based on the principle that a forged document is void and cannot transfer ownership, as well as Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, which allows for comparison of handwriting.
    What is the significance of this ruling? The ruling reinforces the protection of property rights against fraudulent transfers and underscores the importance of verifying the authenticity of signatures in property transactions.
    What should property owners do to protect themselves from forgery? Property owners should safeguard their original property titles, regularly monitor property records for unauthorized transfers, and seek legal advice if they suspect any fraudulent activity.
    Can a trial court determine forgery without an expert witness? Yes, the trial court can determine forgery by comparing signatures on questioned documents with admitted genuine signatures, as authorized by Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court.
    What is the effect of a forged Deed of Absolute Sale? A forged Deed of Absolute Sale is considered void and has no legal effect. It cannot transfer ownership of the property, and the original owner retains their rights.
    What happens to the title issued based on a forged deed? Any title issued based on a forged deed is also invalid and can be cancelled by the court. The original title is then restored to the rightful owner.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Carbonell v. Carbonell-Mendes serves as a significant reminder of the importance of protecting property rights against fraudulent transactions. The ruling reinforces the principle that a forged document is void and cannot transfer ownership, ensuring that property owners are safeguarded from losing their land due to forgery. This case underscores the need for vigilance and due diligence in property transactions, as well as the legal remedies available to victims 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: JANET CARBONELL, PETITIONER, VS. JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES, REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO A. CARBONELL, RESPONDENT., G.R. No. 205681, July 01, 2015

  • Forged Signatures and Good Faith: Protecting Land Ownership in the Philippines

    The Supreme Court decision in Krystle Realty Development Corporation v. Alibin emphasizes the importance of authenticating signatures in property transactions. The Court affirmed the nullification of a Deed of Sale due to a forged signature, underscoring that a forged document cannot transfer ownership. This case reinforces the principle that individuals cannot be deprived of their property rights based on fraudulent documents. Furthermore, it clarifies the responsibilities of purchasers to conduct thorough due diligence to ascertain the validity of a seller’s title, protecting landowners from dubious transactions. The ruling serves as a reminder of the legal safeguards in place to prevent unlawful dispossession of property.

    Dubious Deeds: Can a Forged Signature Transfer Land Rights?

    The case began with a dispute over a parcel of land co-owned by Domingo Alibin and Mariano Rodrigueza. Caridad Rodrigueza claimed to have purchased Domingo’s share based on a Deed of Sale dated August 23, 1962. However, Domingo insisted that the signature on the deed was not his and that he never received any payment for the alleged transfer. Krystle Realty later entered the picture, acquiring the property from the Rodriguezas. This prompted Domingo to file a case seeking to annul the Deed of Sale and the subsequent Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) issued.

    At the heart of the controversy was the authenticity of Domingo’s signature on the Deed of Sale. Both the Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) independently examined the signatures and concluded that the signature on the deed was indeed a forgery. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, emphasizing that the opinion of a handwriting expert is not binding on the court. The court underscored its prerogative to conduct its own examination and arrive at its own conclusion regarding the authenticity of a signature. The Court reasoned that while expert testimony is helpful, it is the court’s role to ultimately determine the facts based on all the evidence presented.

    The Supreme Court further emphasized the standard of care required of purchasers of real property. It reiterated the principle that a buyer cannot claim good faith if they were aware of facts that should have prompted further inquiry. In this case, Krystle Realty’s representative admitted to knowing about Domingo’s interest in the property. Despite this knowledge, Krystle Realty proceeded with the purchase without conducting a thorough investigation into the validity of the seller’s title. The Court held that this lack of due diligence precluded Krystle Realty from claiming the status of a purchaser in good faith. This principle serves as a crucial safeguard against fraudulent property transactions, compelling buyers to exercise vigilance and prudence.

    The legal framework underpinning this decision rests on fundamental principles of property law and contract law. The Civil Code of the Philippines provides that a contract of sale requires consent, object, and cause. If consent is vitiated by fraud, the contract is voidable. A forged signature negates consent, rendering the contract null and void. The Supreme Court highlighted this when it referenced Article 1410 of the Civil Code, noting that actions to declare the inexistence of a contract do not prescribe where consent is absent from the beginning.

    Article 1410 of the Civil Code states: “The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.”

    The Court’s ruling underscores the importance of due diligence in real estate transactions. It clarifies that mere reliance on the face of a title is insufficient, especially when there are circumstances that should raise suspicion. The case reinforces the principle that purchasers must conduct a reasonable inquiry into the seller’s title to ensure its validity. This includes examining the history of the property, verifying the seller’s identity, and investigating any potential claims or encumbrances.

    The practical implications of this decision are significant for both property owners and prospective buyers. For property owners, it provides assurance that their rights will be protected against fraudulent transfers. It reinforces the principle that a forged document cannot deprive them of their ownership rights. For prospective buyers, it serves as a reminder of the importance of conducting thorough due diligence before purchasing property. Failure to do so could result in the loss of their investment and the forfeiture of their rights to the property.

    The Court also addressed the procedural issue of res judicata. Krystle Realty argued that a previous dismissal of Domingo’s petition for certiorari barred the current action. However, the Court rejected this argument, noting that the issue was not raised in the earlier proceedings. The Court emphasized that issues not brought to the attention of the lower court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. This underscores the importance of raising all relevant arguments at the earliest possible opportunity.

    In summation, this case serves as a strong affirmation of the protection afforded to property owners against fraudulent transfers. It highlights the critical role of the courts in safeguarding property rights and ensuring that justice is served. By emphasizing the importance of authentic signatures and due diligence, the Supreme Court has provided valuable guidance to both property owners and prospective buyers, helping to prevent future disputes and ensure the integrity of real estate transactions.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether a forged Deed of Sale could validly transfer ownership of land, and whether Krystle Realty was a purchaser in good faith. The Court ruled that a forged document is invalid and that Krystle Realty failed to exercise due diligence.
    What did the Court decide regarding the signature on the Deed of Sale? The Supreme Court upheld the findings of the lower courts that the signature on the Deed of Sale was a forgery. This conclusion was based on an independent examination of the signatures, as authorized by law.
    What does it mean to be a purchaser in good faith? A purchaser in good faith is someone who buys property without knowledge of any defects or claims against the seller’s title. They must also exercise reasonable diligence in investigating the seller’s title.
    Why was Krystle Realty not considered a purchaser in good faith? Krystle Realty was aware of Domingo Alibin’s interest in the property but failed to conduct a thorough investigation into the seller’s title. This lack of due diligence disqualified them from claiming the status of a purchaser in good faith.
    What is the significance of Article 1410 of the Civil Code in this case? Article 1410 states that actions to declare the inexistence of a contract do not prescribe. This allowed Domingo Alibin to file a case to annul the forged Deed of Sale despite the passage of time.
    What is due diligence in the context of real estate transactions? Due diligence involves taking reasonable steps to investigate the seller’s title and ensure its validity before purchasing property. This includes examining the history of the property, verifying the seller’s identity, and investigating any potential claims or encumbrances.
    What happens to the Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) issued based on the forged deed? The TCTs issued based on the forged Deed of Sale were ordered to be cancelled. New TCTs were to be issued reflecting the rightful ownership of the property.
    What lesson can property buyers learn from this case? Property buyers should always conduct thorough due diligence and not rely solely on the face of the title. They should investigate any potential claims or encumbrances on the property before making a purchase.

    This case serves as a landmark decision, highlighting the importance of verifying the authenticity of documents and exercising due diligence in property transactions. It reinforces the legal framework that protects property owners from fraudulent schemes. By diligently adhering to these principles, individuals can mitigate the risks associated with real estate dealings and safeguard their investments.

    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: KRYSTLE REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. ALIBIN, G.R. No. 196117, August 13, 2014

  • Burden of Proof in Forgery Claims: Upholding Mortgage Validity Absent Clear Evidence

    In the case of Francisco Lim v. Equitable PCI Bank, the Supreme Court addressed the issue of forgery in a real estate mortgage contract. The Court emphasized that allegations of forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, not merely presumed. It ruled against Francisco Lim, who failed to sufficiently demonstrate that his signature on the mortgage was forged. This decision underscores the importance of providing substantial evidence when challenging the authenticity of signatures in legal documents, particularly in cases involving property rights and financial obligations. It reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the party making the allegation.

    Signature Showdown: When Forgery Claims Fall Flat

    The case revolves around a property co-owned by Francisco Lim and his brother, Franco Lim. In 1996, Francisco, Franco, and their mother, Victoria Yao Lim, obtained a loan from Equitable PCI Bank (now Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc.) to benefit Sun Paper Products, Inc. The loan was secured by a real estate mortgage on the co-owned property. When the loan wasn’t paid, the bank foreclosed on the property, leading to the issuance of a new title in the bank’s name and a writ of possession. Francisco Lim then filed a complaint, claiming his signature on the mortgage was forged and that he hadn’t authorized his brother to mortgage the property. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether Francisco Lim provided sufficient evidence to prove his forgery claim and invalidate the mortgage.

    The Supreme Court reaffirmed the fundamental principle that the burden of proving forgery rests squarely on the party alleging it. As the Court stated, “Allegations of forgery, like all other allegations, must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging it.” This means it’s not enough to simply claim forgery; concrete evidence must be presented. Building on this principle, the Court emphasized that forgery should not be presumed, but rather established through a careful comparison of the allegedly forged signature with genuine signatures. This comparison, while often aided by handwriting experts, ultimately falls under the independent judgment of the courts.

    In Francisco Lim’s case, the Court found a critical deficiency in his evidence. He failed to submit genuine signatures for comparison with the contested signature on the mortgage contract. Instead, he presented another mortgage contract with Planters Development Bank, also claiming it was forged by his brother. However, this secondary claim did not bolster his primary allegation. His assertion that he was in the United States when the mortgage contract was executed was also deemed insufficient to prove forgery. The Court highlighted that absence alone does not equate to forgery; further corroboration is necessary.

    Moreover, the Court addressed Francisco Lim’s claims of negligence on the part of Equitable PCI Bank. While banks are expected to exercise due diligence before entering into mortgage contracts, the Court found no evidence that the bank had been negligent in this instance. The fact that Francisco Lim was incorrectly described as single and a Filipino citizen in the mortgage contract was not attributable to the bank, as the property title itself listed him as “single.” This underscored the bank’s reliance on official records, a practice supported by legal precedent.

    Another point raised was the absence of Francisco Lim’s wife’s signature on the mortgage contract. Generally, conjugal property requires the consent of both spouses for it to be mortgaged. However, the Court noted that the conjugal nature of the property was never explicitly raised as an issue in the initial complaint or during the trial. This omission prevented the bank from presenting evidence to rebut the presumption of conjugality. As such, the Court deemed it inappropriate to consider this aspect at such a late stage in the proceedings.

    Worth mentioning is the ruling in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, which states:

    The well-known rule in this jurisdiction is that a person dealing with a registered land has a right to rely upon the face of the torrens certificate of title and to dispense with the need of inquiring further, except when the party concerned has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.

    Further undermining Francisco Lim’s forgery claim were his subsequent actions. Prior to the expiration of the redemption period, he communicated with the bank, expressing his intent to reacquire the foreclosed property. He even visited the bank to discuss the repurchase. These actions directly contradicted his claim of forgery, suggesting it was an afterthought, an attempt to reclaim the property after failing to meet his obligations. Such conduct implied an acceptance of the mortgage’s validity, despite his later assertions.

    All told, the Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, finding no compelling evidence to support the forgery claim. The decision highlights the importance of presenting concrete evidence when challenging the validity of legal documents and reinforces the principle that the burden of proof lies with the one making the allegation. It also underscores the protection afforded to parties who rely in good faith on the face of registered property titles.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether Francisco Lim provided sufficient evidence to prove that his signature on the real estate mortgage was forged, thus invalidating the mortgage.
    What does it mean to allege forgery in a legal document? Alleging forgery means claiming that a signature on a document is not genuine and was made without the person’s consent or knowledge. The person making this claim has the burden of proof.
    What kind of evidence is needed to prove forgery? To prove forgery, clear, positive, and convincing evidence is required, typically involving a comparison of the contested signature with genuine signatures. Expert testimony can be helpful but is not always required.
    Who has the burden of proving forgery in court? The person claiming that a signature is forged has the burden of proving it with sufficient evidence. The court will not automatically assume forgery.
    Why was Francisco Lim’s claim of forgery rejected by the Court? Francisco Lim’s claim was rejected because he failed to provide genuine signatures for comparison and his other evidence (like being out of the country) was deemed insufficient.
    What is the significance of a notarized document in forgery cases? A notarized document carries a presumption of regularity, meaning it is presumed to be authentic and duly executed. Overcoming this presumption requires strong evidence of forgery.
    What is due diligence in the context of mortgage contracts? Due diligence refers to the reasonable steps a bank or financial institution should take to verify the authenticity of documents and the identity of parties involved in a mortgage transaction.
    How does the absence of a spouse’s signature affect a mortgage on conjugal property? Generally, the consent of both spouses is required to mortgage conjugal property. However, in this case, the issue of the property’s conjugal nature was not raised during the initial trial.
    What is the effect of a person’s actions after the alleged forgery? Actions that imply acceptance of a contract, like attempting to repurchase a foreclosed property, can undermine a later claim of forgery, as they suggest the person initially acknowledged the document’s validity.

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Francisco Lim v. Equitable PCI Bank serves as a reminder of the importance of thoroughly substantiating claims of forgery with concrete evidence. This ruling reinforces the stability of mortgage contracts and protects the rights of financial institutions that act in good faith. Moving forward, individuals must understand the evidentiary burden they carry when challenging the authenticity of their signatures on legal documents.

    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: FRANCISCO LIM, VS. EQUITABLE PCI BANK, G.R. No. 183918, January 15, 2014

  • Challenging Document Authenticity: The Burden of Proof in Disputed Land Titles

    The Supreme Court ruled in Pontaoe v. Pontaoe that when signatures on property transfer documents are contested, the burden of proving forgery lies with the party alleging it. Crucially, courts can determine the genuineness of signatures themselves, and are not obligated to consult handwriting experts. This decision highlights the importance of meticulously verifying signatures on legal documents to prevent future disputes over property ownership among family members and other involved parties.

    Family Land Feuds: When Forged Signatures Cast Doubt on Ownership

    The cases of G.R. No. 159585 and G.R. No. 165318, consolidated before the Supreme Court, stemmed from a family dispute over land ownership in Pangasinan. The central issue revolved around the validity of several deeds, including a Deed of Conveyance, a Deed of Quitclaim, and a Deed of Absolute Sale. These documents purportedly transferred ownership of several parcels of land from Juan Pontaoe and his heirs to Teodora and Eduardo Pontaoe. Amando and Dr. Alejandro Pontaoe contested these transfers, alleging that the signatures on the deeds were forgeries, and argued that the properties should be co-owned by all the heirs of the late Juan and Tomasa Aquino. The trial court initially sided with Amando and Dr. Alejandro, but the Court of Appeals reversed in part, leading to the consolidated petitions before the Supreme Court.

    The central legal question was whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale from Tomasa Aquino to Teodora Pontaoe regarding TCT No. 134602, and whether the Deeds of Conveyance and Quitclaim in favor of Eduardo Pontaoe were valid, given the allegations of forgery. The petitioners, Amando and Dr. Alejandro, primarily argued that the Court of Appeals erred in recognizing the Deed of Absolute Sale, because both parties allegedly admitted the property covered by TCT No. 134602 was originally owned by Juan. However, Teodora and Eduardo countered that Tomasa Aquino later solely owned the property when she repurchased it from the Dagupan Rural Bank after its foreclosure.

    Regarding the alleged forgeries, the Supreme Court affirmed the findings of both the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which had independently assessed the signatures and concluded they were indeed forged. Amando and Dr. Alejandro claimed that the signatures appearing on key property transfer documents were not authentic, challenging the legitimacy of the transfer of land ownership. This was based on their assessment of the original documents compared against confirmed signatures of the parties, like Juan and Dr. Alejandro. They presented that since this was an assessment of authenticity, handwriting experts were required to settle the validity of land transfer ownership.

    In its analysis, the Supreme Court emphasized that while expert testimony can be helpful in such cases, it is not indispensable. The Court explained that judges are fully capable of making their own determination as to the genuineness of a signature by comparing it to known samples. The court stated:

    Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting “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.”

    Moreover, the Supreme Court underscored that the opinions of handwriting experts are not binding on courts, especially when the issue involves simple similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined through visual comparison. This clarification provides important guidance to lower courts on when expert testimony is merely helpful and when it is crucial.

    Ultimately, the Supreme Court denied the petitions and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The High Court agreed that Tomasa Aquino had the right to transfer ownership of the property covered by TCT No. 134602 to Teodora, since Tomasa had bought back the property from Dagupan Rural Bank after its initial mortgage and foreclosure. The court was unconvinced to overturn findings of fact of the trial and appellate courts. It reinforced that findings of fact made by lower courts, particularly when they align, are binding on the Supreme Court.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the signatures on the Deeds of Conveyance and Quitclaim were forgeries, thereby invalidating the transfer of land ownership. The case hinged on the evaluation of evidence and the Court’s ability to determine the genuineness of signatures without relying solely on handwriting experts.
    Did the Supreme Court rely on handwriting experts to determine forgery? No, the Supreme Court affirmed that while expert testimony is helpful, it is not mandatory. The Court itself can compare the disputed signatures with genuine ones to determine authenticity.
    Who had the burden of proving the signatures were forged? The burden of proof rested on the parties alleging forgery (Amando and Dr. Alejandro Pontaoe). They were responsible for presenting sufficient evidence to convince the court that the signatures were not genuine.
    What was the significance of Tomasa Aquino repurchasing the property? Tomasa Aquino repurchasing the property from Dagupan Rural Bank was crucial because it established her ownership of the land. This ownership legitimized her subsequent sale of the property to Teodora Pontaoe.
    What happens to the land titles after this decision? The Court upheld the Court of Appeals ruling declaring Teodora Pontaoe as the absolute owner of the parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 134602. It also declared the Deed of Conveyance void, and declared Dr. Alejandro as co-owner of half the property covered by OCT No. 139.
    Can a judge decide on the genuineness of a signature? Yes, according to Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, a judge is authorized to compare a disputed signature with admitted or proven genuine writings to determine its authenticity. This authority reinforces the court’s role in assessing the evidence directly.
    What are the practical implications for landowners? Landowners should ensure that signatures on documents are verified and authenticated properly at the time of execution. It’s crucial to have clear, documented proof of all property transactions and transfers to prevent future disputes.
    What does this case highlight about family property disputes? The case highlights how important it is for families to have documented, transparent agreements and property transfers. Open communication and clear legal documentation can avoid misunderstandings and conflicts over property ownership.

    This case underscores the critical importance of meticulous documentation and signature verification in property transactions. It reaffirms the court’s authority to assess the genuineness of signatures independently and emphasizes the need for landowners to ensure all property transfers are legally sound and transparent. This serves as a significant lesson for anyone dealing with property, especially within families, to secure their interests through proper legal channels and documentation.

    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: Pontaoe v. Pontaoe, G.R. Nos. 159585 & 165318, April 22, 2008

  • Signature Showdown: When is a Signature Forged in Philippine Property Deals?

    Burden of Proof in Forgery Cases: Why ‘Seeing is Believing’ Doesn’t Cut It in Philippine Courts

    In Philippine property disputes, simply claiming a signature is fake isn’t enough. The Supreme Court in Rivera v. Turiano emphasizes that forgery must be proven with clear, convincing evidence, not just a quick look at signatures. Learn why visual inspection alone fails and what solid proof is needed to win your case.

    G.R. NO. 156249, March 07, 2007

    INTRODUCTION

    Imagine losing your property or a significant investment due to a supposedly forged signature. Real estate fraud is a grim reality, and the authenticity of signatures on crucial documents like deeds and powers of attorney is often contested. The case of Mariano Rivera and Jose Rivera v. Emerito Aquino Turiano delves into this very issue, highlighting the crucial legal principle of burden of proof in forgery cases within the Philippines.

    This case revolves around a real estate mortgage secured using a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) that was later challenged as forged. The central question before the Supreme Court was: Did the party claiming forgery sufficiently prove their case, or was a mere visual difference in signatures enough to invalidate a legal document?

    LEGAL CONTEXT: FORGERY AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF

    In the Philippines, forgery is not just a casual accusation; it’s a serious legal claim with significant ramifications. Philippine law, particularly in civil cases, operates on the principle of burden of proof, or onus probandi. This principle dictates that the party who alleges a fact must prove it. In forgery cases, the burden of proving that a signature is indeed forged rests squarely on the shoulders of the person making the allegation.

    The assertion of forgery effectively imputes a crime – falsification – which under Philippine law is a criminal offense. Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code outlines various acts of falsification, including counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting or signature. Given the gravity of this accusation, Philippine courts require more than just a simple assertion or a superficial comparison of signatures to declare a document forged.

    The landmark case of Ladignon v. Court of Appeals (390 Phil. 1161, 2000) provides the guiding criteria for determining forgery. The Supreme Court in Ladignon emphasized that identifying forgery involves a detailed process, not a cursory glance. The Court stated:

    “The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.”

    This means that courts must look beyond mere dissimilarities in signatures. They must consider factors like natural variations in a person’s handwriting over time, the possibility of skillful imitation, and the overall characteristics of genuine and questioned signatures. Expert handwriting analysis, while not always mandatory, often plays a crucial role in providing the clear and convincing evidence needed to prove forgery.

    CASE BREAKDOWN: RIVERA V. TURIANO

    The story of Rivera v. Turiano begins with a loan. Manuel Pelaez borrowed P240,000 from Mariano Rivera, securing it with a real estate mortgage over a Parañaque property registered under the name of Paz Aquino, Pelaez’s alleged attorney-in-fact. Pelaez presented a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) purportedly signed by Paz Aquino authorizing him to mortgage the property. Crucially, this SPA was not immediately registered, but Rivera was given the owner’s duplicate title as security.

    Years later, when Mariano Rivera attempted to register the mortgage, he encountered a roadblock. Emerito Aquino Turiano, Paz Aquino’s son, had already registered an affidavit of loss, claiming the owner’s duplicate title was lost. This effectively prevented the mortgage registration. Turiano argued that the SPA used by Pelaez was a forgery, claiming his mother’s signature was falsified.

    The case wound its way through the courts:

    1. Regional Trial Court (RTC): The RTC initially ruled in favor of the Riveras. It found that the photocopy of the SPA, along with the notary public’s testimony and notarial records, constituted sufficient secondary evidence. The RTC dismissed Turiano’s forgery claim, finding it unsupported and self-serving. The court ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the affidavit of loss and register the mortgage.
    2. Court of Appeals (CA): The CA reversed the RTC decision. The appellate court, through “ocular inspection,” concluded that the signatures on the SPA and genuine documents of Paz Aquino were “clearly discernible” as different, thus declaring the SPA a forgery and the mortgage void. The CA did not require expert testimony, relying solely on its visual assessment.
    3. Supreme Court (SC): The Supreme Court overturned the CA’s ruling and reinstated the RTC decision. The SC emphasized that the CA erred in relying on mere visual comparison to conclude forgery. The Court reiterated the principle that forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the party alleging forgery – in this case, Turiano.

    The Supreme Court highlighted the following critical points in its decision:

    • Insufficient Proof of Forgery: Turiano failed to present clear and convincing evidence of forgery. His claim rested primarily on the alleged variance in signatures, which the CA accepted based on visual inspection alone.
    • Burden of Proof Not Met: Turiano did not meet the burden of proof required to establish forgery. He did not provide expert handwriting analysis or any other substantial evidence to demonstrate that the signature on the SPA was not Paz Aquino’s.
    • Ladignon Criteria Not Applied: The CA failed to apply the comprehensive criteria set forth in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals. The CA’s “ocular inspection” fell short of the required detailed analysis of signature variations and resemblances.

    As the Supreme Court pointed out, “While the CA held that the differences in the signatures of Paz Aquino and that of the questioned document are ‘clearly discernible’ through ‘a mere ocular inspection,’ this observation, by itself, is no good reason to conclude that the document is forged.” The Court further stressed, “It must be stressed that the mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.”

    PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: PROTECTING YOUR PROPERTY INTERESTS

    Rivera v. Turiano serves as a stark reminder of the importance of solid evidence in legal disputes, particularly those involving allegations of forgery in real estate transactions. It underscores that simply claiming a signature is fake is not enough; you must be prepared to substantiate your claim with compelling proof.

    For individuals and businesses involved in property transactions, this case offers several key lessons:

    • Due Diligence is Paramount: When dealing with real estate, especially through representatives acting under a Power of Attorney, conduct thorough due diligence. Verify the SPA’s authenticity beyond just visual inspection. Check notarial records, and if possible, confirm with the principal directly.
    • Burden of Proof Matters: Understand that if you allege forgery, the legal burden is on you to prove it. Visual discrepancies alone are insufficient. Gather substantial evidence.
    • Consider Expert Analysis: In cases where forgery is suspected, consider engaging a qualified handwriting expert. Expert testimony can provide the clear and convincing evidence needed to support a forgery claim, or conversely, to defend against one.
    • Prompt Registration: Register important documents like mortgages and SPAs promptly. Delayed registration can create opportunities for disputes and complications, as seen in this case with the affidavit of loss.

    KEY LESSONS FROM RIVERA V. TURIANO

    • Forgery is a Serious Allegation: Accusing someone of forgery is a grave matter with legal consequences. Do not make such claims lightly.
    • Visual Inspection is Not Enough: Courts require more than just visual comparison to determine forgery. Relying solely on “ocular inspection” is insufficient and legally unsound.
    • Clear and Convincing Evidence Required: To prove forgery, you must present clear, positive, and convincing evidence that goes beyond mere signature variations.
    • Burden of Proof on the Allegator: The party claiming forgery bears the responsibility of proving it. Failure to meet this burden will likely result in the rejection of the forgery claim.

    FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQs)

    Q: What is considered sufficient proof of forgery in Philippine courts?

    A: Sufficient proof goes beyond just pointing out differences in signatures. It typically involves expert handwriting analysis, comparison with numerous authenticated signatures, evidence of motive and opportunity for forgery, and testimony from witnesses familiar with the signatory’s handwriting habits. The key is clear, positive, and convincing evidence, as emphasized in Rivera v. Turiano and Ladignon v. Court of Appeals.

    Q: Can a court declare a document forged based only on visual inspection of signatures?

    A: No. As highlighted in Rivera v. Turiano, Philippine courts, especially the Supreme Court, have ruled that “ocular inspection” or mere visual comparison of signatures is not sufficient to declare a document forged. A more thorough and evidence-based approach is required.

    Q: What is the role of a handwriting expert in forgery cases?

    A: Handwriting experts can provide crucial testimony by analyzing signatures and handwriting to determine authenticity. Their expert opinion, based on scientific methods and comparison with genuine samples, carries significant weight in court and can be vital in meeting the burden of proof for forgery.

    Q: What should I do if I suspect a document related to my property is forged?

    A: If you suspect forgery, act quickly. Gather all relevant documents, consult with a lawyer experienced in real estate litigation, and consider engaging a handwriting expert to assess the signature in question. Preserve all evidence and initiate legal action promptly to protect your rights.

    Q: Who bears the cost of proving forgery in a legal case?

    A: The party alleging forgery bears the cost of proving it. This includes expenses for handwriting experts, legal fees, and other costs associated with gathering and presenting evidence. If they fail to prove forgery, they may bear these costs without achieving their desired legal outcome.

    Q: Is a notarized document automatically considered authentic in court?

    A: While notarization adds a presumption of regularity to a document, it does not guarantee authenticity against a claim of forgery. Notarization primarily attests to the signatory’s presence and acknowledgment, not the genuineness of the signature itself. A forged signature can still be notarized if the notary is deceived or complicit.

    Q: Can the age of the signatures affect forgery analysis?

    A: Yes, the age of signatures can be a factor. Handwriting can naturally change over time due to age, health, and other factors. Handwriting experts consider these potential variations when analyzing signatures, especially when comparing signatures from documents executed years apart.

    Q: What happens if forgery is proven in a real estate transaction?

    A: If forgery is successfully proven, the forged document is considered void ab initio (from the beginning). This means it has no legal effect. In a real estate context, a forged deed or mortgage would be invalidated, and property rights would revert to their rightful owners as if the forged document never existed.

    ASG Law specializes in Real Estate Law and Litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.

  • Bank Liability for Forged Checks: Upholding Depositor Rights

    In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court held that a bank bears primary responsibility for honoring forged checks, emphasizing the high degree of diligence required in safeguarding depositors’ funds. This decision reinforces the principle that banks must meticulously verify signatures and cannot automatically debit a depositor’s account for unauthorized transactions. The Court’s stance underscores the fiduciary nature of the bank-depositor relationship and sets a high standard of care for financial institutions in protecting against fraud. The decision also clarifies that depositors are not automatically estopped from questioning wrongful withdrawals, even if they initially fail to detect errors in bank statements. Overall, the ruling serves as a robust protection for depositors and a reminder of the stringent obligations placed on banks.

    Sign Here, Pay There: Who Pays When Forgery Strikes?

    The case of Bank of the Philippine Islands (BPI) v. Casa Montessori Internationale revolves around a series of forged checks that drained the funds of Casa Montessori, a pre-school institution. Leonardo T. Yabut, Casa Montessori’s external auditor, masterminded the scheme, forging the signature of the school’s president on nine checks, totaling P782,600. These checks were then encashed through a BPI branch. Casa Montessori, upon discovering the fraud, sued BPI to recover the lost funds. The central legal question was: Who should bear the loss resulting from these forged checks—the bank, for failing to detect the forgery, or the depositor, for failing to prevent it?

    The Supreme Court anchored its decision on Section 23 of the Negotiable Instruments Law (NIL), which unequivocally states that a forged signature is “wholly inoperative.” This means that no right to enforce payment can be acquired through a forged signature, unless the party against whom enforcement is sought is precluded from setting up the forgery as a defense. The court found that the signatures on the checks were indeed forged, based on Yabut’s admission and the findings of the PNP Crime Laboratory. These findings showed that the handwritings on the checks did not match the authorized signatory’s specimen signature.

    Building on this principle, the Court emphasized the high standard of care expected of banks. Banks are obligated to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, always bearing in mind the fiduciary nature of their relationship. This obligation includes knowing the signatures of their customers, as stated in the Court’s earlier ruling in San Carlos Milling Co., Ltd. v. Bank of the Philippine Islands. If a bank pays a forged check, it must be considered as making the payment out of its own funds and cannot ordinarily charge the amount to the depositor’s account. The bank cannot use the excuse that CASA also committed negligence because of the fact that CASA hired an external auditor that was negligent, but the bank’s negligence was what mainly caused the plaintiff to lose the amount of money.

    BPI argued that Casa Montessori’s failure to report errors in its bank statements within ten days, as stipulated in the bank’s notice, should constitute a waiver or estoppel, barring the school from questioning the wrongful withdrawals. However, the Court rejected this argument. It explained that such notices are merely confirmations requesting clients to affirm the accuracy of the recorded items. Failure to report an error within the stipulated time frame does not automatically translate to a waiver of rights or create an estoppel. Depositors cannot renounce a right they never possessed.

    According to the ruling of the Supreme Court, BPI was held liable for its failure to properly verify the signatures on the forged checks. The Court declared that BPI, as the drawee bank, was negligent in allowing payment under a forged signature. This negligence was deemed the proximate cause of the loss suffered by Casa Montessori. The Court noted that the banking business is impressed with public interest, necessitating a high degree of diligence and integrity. Since Yabut was able to open a bank account, which is a branch of the BPI bank, BPI can easily have Yabut be liable. This ruling serves as a stark reminder to banks to prioritize signature verification and internal control measures to safeguard depositors’ funds and maintain public trust.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was determining who should bear the loss resulting from forged checks: the bank, for failing to detect the forgery, or the depositor, for allegedly contributing to the fraud.
    What did the Negotiable Instruments Law say about forged signatures? Section 23 of the NIL states that a forged signature is “wholly inoperative,” meaning no right to enforce payment can be acquired through it unless the party is precluded from claiming the forgery.
    What is the standard of care required of banks in handling deposits? Banks are required to treat the accounts of their depositors with meticulous care, maintaining a high degree of diligence and integrity due to the fiduciary nature of the relationship.
    Can a bank debit a depositor’s account for a forged check? Ordinarily, no. The Court has consistently ruled that a bank paying a forged check is considered to have made the payment out of its own funds and cannot charge the amount to the depositor’s account.
    Did Casa Montessori’s failure to report errors in bank statements waive its rights? The Court said no, the notification of needing to correct the accounts is a way to make bank audits more reliable and does not have to be the reason for giving BPI any waiver.
    What was the Court’s final ruling regarding liability? The Supreme Court ruled that BPI was primarily liable for the loss due to its negligence in failing to detect the forged signatures and allowing payment on the checks.
    What is required of being a prudent bank? It is required of them to comply with internal banking rules and regulations that form part of the contract it enters into with its depositors
    Was there any fault that CASA committed? Yes, it was their unintelligent choice in the selection and appointment of an auditor but the fault is not tantamount to negligence.

    The Supreme Court’s decision underscores the critical role banks play in safeguarding depositors’ funds and reinforces the importance of stringent internal control measures to prevent fraud. It sets a precedent for holding banks accountable for their negligence in handling forged instruments. The high court’s decision not only protected Casa Montessori’s interests but also reaffirmed the fundamental principles governing the bank-depositor relationship under Philippine law.

    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: BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS vs. CASA MONTESSORI INTERNATIONALE, G.R. No. 149454, May 28, 2004

  • Validity of a Deed of Assignment: Signature Authenticity and Corporate Share Transfers in the Philippines

    Authenticating Signatures on Deeds: Lessons on Corporate Share Transfers

    TLDR: This case underscores the importance of authenticating signatures on legal documents, particularly deeds of assignment for corporate shares. The court emphasizes that expert testimony and thorough signature comparison are crucial in determining the validity of such documents, even if discrepancies exist in the dating. The decision highlights the need for careful scrutiny of signatures and the potential for pre-signed documents in corporate transactions.

    G.R. No. 75908, October 22, 1999

    Introduction

    Imagine investing in a company, only to find out later that the shares you thought were yours are contested due to a questionable signature on the transfer document. This scenario highlights the critical importance of signature verification in legal documents, especially when dealing with corporate share transfers. The case of Federico O. Borromeo vs. Amancio Sun revolves around such a dispute, focusing on the authenticity of a signature on a Deed of Assignment for corporate shares. The central legal question is whether the signature on the deed was indeed that of Federico O. Borromeo, and if so, what the implications are for the transfer of shares to Amancio Sun.

    Legal Context: Signature Verification and Document Authentication

    In Philippine law, the authenticity of a signature is paramount in determining the validity of a legal document. The Rules of Evidence provide guidelines for proving the genuineness of handwriting. Section 22, Rule 132 states:

    “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 a 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.“

    This rule allows for the use of expert testimony, as well as comparison with genuine signatures, to establish the authenticity of a contested signature. Previous cases, such as Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan, have emphasized the importance of credible expert witnesses and the scrutiny of their qualifications. Moreover, the Negotiable Instruments Law, particularly Section 14, provides a legal framework for understanding instruments signed in blank, which can be relevant in cases involving pre-signed documents.

    Case Breakdown: The Battle Over Borromeo’s Signature

    The case began when Amancio Sun sought to compel Federico O. Borromeo, Inc. (F.O.B., Inc.) to transfer 23,223 shares of stock to his name, based on a Deed of Assignment dated January 16, 1974. Sun claimed that all shares registered under Borromeo’s name rightfully belonged to him, with Borromeo merely acting as a figurehead. Borromeo contested the assignment, alleging forgery.

    • Initial Trial: The trial court initially ruled in favor of Sun, declaring the signature genuine but suggesting it was signed years before the date on the deed.
    • Appeals Court Reversal: The Court of Appeals initially reversed the trial court’s decision, siding with Borromeo and declaring the signature a forgery.
    • Motion for Reconsideration: Sun filed a motion for reconsideration, challenging the credibility of Borromeo’s expert witness.
    • PC Crime Laboratory Examination: The Court of Appeals then ordered an examination by the Philippine Constabulary (PC) Crime Laboratory. The PC report concluded that the signature was indeed Borromeo’s and could have been signed between 1950 and 1957.
    • Final Ruling: Based on the PC report, the Court of Appeals reversed its earlier decision and affirmed the trial court’s ruling, validating the Deed of Assignment.

    The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ final decision, emphasizing the weight given to factual findings of lower courts and the corroborating evidence from the PC Crime Laboratory. The court quoted:

    “factual finding of the Court of Appeals are conclusive on the parties and not reviewable by the Supreme Court – and they carry even more weight when the Court of Appeals affirms the factual findings of the trial court.”

    The court also addressed the discrepancy in dates, explaining that the Deed of Assignment was likely pre-signed to facilitate future share transfers:

    “It was clearly intended to be signed in blank to facilitate the assignment of shares from one person to another at any future time. This is similar to Section 14 of the Negotiable Instruments Law where the blanks may be filled up by the holder, the signing in blank being with the assumed authority to do so.”

    Practical Implications: Due Diligence in Corporate Transactions

    This case provides valuable lessons for anyone involved in corporate share transfers. It highlights the importance of verifying the authenticity of signatures on legal documents and understanding the potential implications of pre-signed documents. Businesses should implement robust procedures for documenting and authenticating share transfers to avoid future disputes. Individuals should exercise caution when signing blank or pre-dated documents, understanding the potential risks involved.

    Key Lessons

    • Signature Verification: Always verify the authenticity of signatures on legal documents, especially those involving significant financial transactions.
    • Expert Testimony: Expert witnesses can play a crucial role in determining the genuineness of a signature. Ensure that any expert retained is credible and qualified.
    • Document Dating: Discrepancies in dates should be carefully examined but do not automatically invalidate a document. Understand the context and potential reasons for the discrepancy.
    • Pre-Signed Documents: Exercise caution when signing blank or pre-dated documents. Be aware of the potential risks and ensure that you understand the terms and conditions.
    • Due Diligence: Conduct thorough due diligence in all corporate transactions, including verifying the ownership and transferability of shares.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: What is a Deed of Assignment?

    A: A Deed of Assignment is a legal document that transfers ownership of an asset, such as corporate shares, from one party to another.

    Q: Why is signature verification so important in legal documents?

    A: Signature verification ensures that the person signing the document is who they claim to be and that they intended to enter into the agreement. It helps prevent fraud and disputes.

    Q: What happens if a signature on a Deed of Assignment is found to be a forgery?

    A: If a signature is proven to be a forgery, the Deed of Assignment is invalid, and the transfer of ownership is not legally binding.

    Q: Can a document be valid if the signature date differs from the document date?

    A: Yes, a document can still be valid if the signature date differs, provided there is a reasonable explanation for the discrepancy, such as the document being pre-signed.

    Q: What is the role of an expert witness in a signature dispute?

    A: An expert witness can provide expert testimony on the authenticity of a signature, based on their knowledge and experience in handwriting analysis.

    Q: What is the significance of the PC Crime Laboratory report in this case?

    A: The PC Crime Laboratory report provided crucial evidence supporting the genuineness of the signature, which ultimately led the Court of Appeals to validate the Deed of Assignment.

    Q: What should I do if I suspect a signature on a legal document is a forgery?

    A: If you suspect forgery, you should immediately consult with a lawyer and consider obtaining a handwriting analysis from a qualified expert.

    Q: How can businesses protect themselves from signature disputes in corporate transactions?

    A: Businesses can implement strict procedures for documenting and authenticating signatures, including requiring witnesses and using digital signature technology.

    ASG Law specializes in corporate law and litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.