Title
Mendoza vs. Fermin
Case
G.R. No. 177235
Decision Date
Jul 7, 2014
A forged deed of sale led to a legal battle over a property in Leonardo Mendoza's estate, with the Supreme Court ruling the sale void due to forged signatures, canceling the title, and awarding attorney's fees.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 177235)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Background and Estate Proceedings
    • Leonardo G. Mendoza, allegedly married to petitioner Serconsision R. Mendoza, died on November 25, 1986.
    • In the testate proceedings of Leonardo’s estate, respondent Aurora Mendoza Fermin, his legitimate and eldest daughter, was appointed as one of the administratrices.
    • An inventory of Leonardo’s properties was submitted by petitioner in March 1989, which included a parcel of land described as Lot 39, Block 12 of the consolidation and subdivision plan Pcs-04-00250 located in ParaAaque City.
  • Discovery and Allegation of a Fraudulent Transaction
    • In 1990, while preparing another inventory as directed by the probate court, respondent discovered that her father and petitioner had purportedly sold the property to Eduardo C. Sanchez through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 22, 1986.
    • It was noted that the Deed of Absolute Sale was registered only on April 30, 1991, which is five years after the alleged transaction took place.
    • Despite the alleged sale, petitioner continued to collect rental payments from the tenants without notifying them of any change in ownership.
  • Initiation of Action by Respondent
    • Respondent, suspecting that her father’s signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale had been forged, filed a case on March 19, 1992 for the annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 52593.
    • In her complaint, respondent sought:
      • Declaration that the Deed of Absolute Sale and TCT No. 52593 be null and void.
      • An order to the Register of Deeds to revive and reinstate TCT No. 48946 in the name of Leonardo Mendoza and Serconsision Mendoza.
      • Award of damages, including moral and corrective damages, as well as attorney’s fees and court costs.
  • Evidence and Testimonies Presented
    • Respondent alleged that the signature of Leonardo in the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged.
      • She based her claim on personal knowledge of her father’s signature, having served as his private secretary during his tenure as Mayor from 1972 to 1981.
      • An expert handwriting witness, Noel Cruz (NBI Document Examiner), testified that the questioned signatures did not match Leonardo’s specimen signatures.
    • Additional evidence and testimony were provided by Teresita Rosales, a tenant who presented:
      • A receipt dated November 24, 1986, showing payment made with a signature purported to be Leonardo’s but allegedly signed by petitioner.
      • Her eyewitness account that petitioner once forged Leonardo’s signature in a different document.
    • Documentary evidence also included certifications from the Office of the Clerk of Court, which cast doubt on the legitimacy of the notarization executed by Atty. Julian Tubig.
  • Trial Court Proceedings
    • The Regional Trial Court (RTC) rendered a Decision on April 14, 1999, finding that there was no forgery, and declared the sale valid.
    • The RTC’s Decision dismissed respondent’s complaint and any counterclaims, holding that no witness had categorically stated that someone else had compelled or forged Leonardo’s signature.
    • A subsequent Motion for Reconsideration was filed by respondent, which was denied by the RTC in a Resolution dated December 6, 1999.
  • Appellate Proceedings and the Court of Appeals (CA) Decision
    • Dissatisfied with the RTC’s findings, respondent appealed to the CA.
    • On January 25, 2007, the CA reversed the RTC’s Decision:
      • The CA declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void.
      • It ordered the cancellation of TCT No. 52593 and the revival of TCT No. 48946 in the name of Leonardo and Serconsision Mendoza.
      • The CA also ordered the imposition of attorney’s fees amounting to P30,000.00 in favor of respondent.
    • Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration before the CA, which was denied in a Resolution dated March 28, 2007.
  • Issues Raised on Review
    • Petitioner argued that the CA erred in setting aside the RTC’s findings which upheld the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
    • It maintained that the appellate court should have confined its review to errors of law and not re-examined the disputed evidentiary findings on forgery and notarization.
  • Supreme Court’s Examination
    • The Supreme Court reviewed the entire record, focusing on:
      • The independent examination and comparison of the questioned signature against standard specimens.
      • The credibility and reliability of the testimonies of both the handwriting experts and the direct witnesses.
      • The questionable circumstances surrounding the notarization of the document, including the existence of two notarized copies and defects in the notarial commission process.
    • The Court also considered provisions of the Civil Code regarding the disposal of conjugal property without the required consent, noting that the sale in question was voidable and prejudicial to the heirs' rights.

Issues:

  • Authenticity of the Deed of Absolute Sale
    • Whether Leonardo Mendoza’s signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was genuine or forged.
    • The reliability of petitioner’s assertion that Leonardo signed the document versus respondent’s differing expert and eyewitness testimonies.
  • Legitimacy of the Notarization
    • Whether the notarization of the Deed of Absolute Sale was regular, particularly in light of:
      • The defect in Atty. Julian Tubig’s commission at the time of notarization.
      • The existence of two copies of the deed executed for taxation purposes, which raised doubts on the document’s authenticity.
  • Adequacy of the Lower Courts’ Findings
    • Whether the RTC erred in its finding of no forgery despite presented evidence to the contrary.
    • Whether the CA properly exercised its independent judgment in re-examining the evidence and concluding that the signatures were forged.
  • Implications on Conjugal Property and Heir Rights
    • Whether the sale of the conjugal property without the requisite consent (as governed by Article 173 of the Civil Code) voided or nullified the transaction.
    • The effect of the forgery on the legal rights of the heirs and the administratrix in protecting Leonardo Mendoza’s estate.
  • Scope of Judicial Review in Appellate Cases
    • Whether the Supreme Court should re-weigh the evidence or give deference to the CA’s independent examination of facts.
    • The proper standard of review concerning factual findings made by the lower courts.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)
Unlock Full Case Digest

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

About Privacy Terms