G.R. No. L-31494 - Lopez vs. Court of Appeals

Jesus R. Martin, the respondent and plaintiff-appellee, filed a complaint on July 11, 1957, in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan seeking recovery of two parcels of land and the nullity of a deed of absolute sale dated May 18, 1948.
Pastor Lopez, the petitioner and defendant-appellant, filed his answer on August 12, 1957, asserting his title to the disputed lands through alleged deeds of sale – one executed by Gervacio Resoso for the land described in paragraph 3 and another executed by Zacarias Resoso for the land described in paragraph 7.
The case proceeded to trial where evidence was presented regarding continuous possession by the heirs of Gervacio Resoso and allegedly illegal possession by Pastor Lopez, in addition to testimony regarding the authenticity of the disputed deed.

Pastor Lopez’s witnesses – Notary Public Simeon Rico, and two subscribing witnesses (Antonio Marayag and Feliciano Soliven) – who testified to the genuineness of the disputed deed.
Jesus R. Martin’s witness – Antonio Rotor, an NBI examiner of documents – who testified that the signature of Gervacio Resoso on the deed was not genuine based on various discrepancies in letter formations, strokes, and overall handwriting characteristics.

A comparative examination of the questioned signature with standard specimens of Gervacio Resoso’s signature.
Observation of significant differences such as irregularities in the letters (e.g., the differences between “G” and the use of “b” versus “v”) and the presence or absence of characteristic curves and strokes.

Pastor Lopez’s claim of possessing the land for over thirty years conflicts with the alleged sale date of May 18, 1948.
Conflicting evidence on the timeline, including that the house on the land was reportedly built in 1937 and declared for taxation purposes in November 1948, long after the alleged sale.

The deed of sale was executed for a paltry consideration of P100.00, despite the land’s substantial area (1,456 square meters) and evident improvements.
The delayed registration of the deed (registered on July 22, 1957) further compounded the suspicious nature of the transaction.

The deed of absolute sale was “false and apocryphal, null and void.”
Jesus R. Martin was declared the true owner of the parcel described in paragraph 3.
The expert testimony and the court’s own comparative visual inspection conclusively pointed to forgery.

The rebuttal of the presumption of genuineness of public documents.
The court’s deference to expert testimony over that of the subscribing witnesses.
The methodology used in comparing handwriting.
The findings regarding the “unusual” payment procedures and the excessive award of damages.

The appellate court reaffirmed the trial court’s findings, emphasizing the clear discrepancies in the disputed signature and evidence of fraud.

Whether the trial and appellate courts erred in rejecting the presumption of regularity and genuineness of the public document (the deed of sale) by requiring clear, strong, and convincing evidence to overcome this presumption.
Whether the courts misapplied the rule that gives priority to subscribing witnesses in the proof of handwriting and instead unduly relied on the expert testimony of an NBI documents examiner.
Whether, in light of the uncontradicted testimonies of the judge-notary and the subscribing witnesses, the finding of forgery in the disputed deed was unjustified.
Whether the court erred in considering the expert testimony as the most reliable evidence, contrary to the petitioner’s assertion that such opinion testimony is the weakest form of evidence.
Whether the court properly discounted the petitioner’s explanations regarding the differences in the signatures on the deed.
Whether the court wrongly upheld the finding of an “unusual” payment procedure as being uncorroborated by evidence, particularly affecting the conclusions on the authenticity of the deed.
Whether the award of damages in the lower court’s decision was without legal or factual basis.