Case Digest (G.R. No. 202612)
Facts:
Teodoro C. Tortona, Rodrigo C. Tortona, Pedro C. Tortona, Ernesto C. Tortona, and Patricio C. Tortona v. Julian C. Gregorio et al., G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018, the Supreme Court Third Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.Petitioners are the heirs of Rufina Casimiro; respondents are the heirs of Rafaela Casimiro. The dispute arose from an alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 14, 1974, by which Rufina purportedly sold her fractional shares in two parcels of land in Bacoor, Cavite, to her sister Rafaela. Rufina and Rafaela had co‑owned two parcels (Rufina owning 1/10 in one lot and 1/5 in the other); after Rufina’s death petitioners continued to receive her share of income until they learned of the recorded sale and subsequent extrajudicial partition that increased respondents’ shares.
In 1997 petitioners filed an action for recovery of real property with damages. They alleged Rufina never consented to any sale and that her apparent thumbmarks on the Deed were forged. The trial court (Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Bacoor, Cavite) ordered the questioned document sent to the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) for examination. NBI fingerprint examiner Eriberto B. Gomez, Jr. prepared a Technical Investigation/Identification Report (First Report, July 13, 2000) concluding the thumbmarks on the Deed were not Rufina’s; a later report (May 2, 2001) noted that some standard specimens were faint but did not contradict the First Report’s conclusions.
On May 31, 2005 the Regional Trial Court rendered judgment declaring Rufina’s thumbmarks on the Deed forged and the Deed (and consequential extrajudicial partition entries and titles) null and void, ordering registry cancellations; damages were denied. The RTC credited Gomez’s examination and Judge Novato T. Cajigal’s independent comparison of the originals and enlarged photographs, and found the notary’s credibility questionable.
The Court of Appeals (Seventeenth Division; Decision penned by Associate Justice Florito S. Macalino, concurred in by Justices Villon and Borreta) reversed on July 9, 2012, holding the notarized Deed enjoyed the presumption of regularity and that petitioners failed to establish forgery by clear and convincing evidence, emphasizing Gomez’s later report that prevented “positive identification.” Pet...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Supreme Court in a Rule 45 petition review factual findings on the authenticity of thumbmarks when exceptions to Rule 45 apply?
- Was the Deed of Absolute Sale void because Rufina Casimiro’s thumbmarks on it were forged and she never conse...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)