Title
Heirs of Trazona vs. Heirs of Canada
Case
G.R. No. 175874
Decision Date
Dec 11, 2013
Heirs of Cipriano Trazona proved forgery of a 1956 deed, reclaiming ownership of Lot No. 5053-H from encroachers; SC annulled deed, ordered demolition, and awarded fees.
rightful owners
disputed land
forged deed
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. 175874)

Factual Background

Lot No. 5053-H was purchased by Cipriano Trazona from the government in 1940, and he cultivated and paid taxes on the land continuously. In 1949 Dionisio Canada acquired an adjacent parcel from Pilar Diaz, but he was later found to have encroached on a small portion of Lot No. 5053-H. A barangay confrontation occurred in 1952, after which Dionisio offered to buy the encroached portion but was refused. In 1956 Cipriano granted Dionisio permission to temporarily erect a house on the encroached portion, where the house remained. No ejectment action was filed during Cipriano’s lifetime. After Cipriano’s death in 1982 his son Hermogenes and other heirs continued cultivation and tax payments. Petitioners discovered in 1997 that Tax Declaration No. 07764 had been cancelled and Tax Declaration No. 23959 had been issued in Dionisio’s name, allegedly predicated on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956 purporting to convey a portion of Lot No. 5053-H to Dionisio.

Trial Court Proceedings and Claims

On 28 July 1997 petitioners filed a complaint for quieting of title, annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956, cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959, recovery of possession and ownership, damages, and attorneys fees. Petitioners alleged that the 1956 deed was a forgery. Respondents denied forgery, maintained the deed’s authenticity, and interposed counterclaims for moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees. During trial petitioners offered comparative-handwriting expert testimony from Romeo O. Varona of the PNP Crime Laboratory, who concluded that Cipriano’s signature on the 1956 deed was forged. Respondents presented testimonial evidence from Gorgonio Canada, who claimed to have witnessed the execution of the deed and asserted that the family enjoyed the lot’s fruits from 1956 until 1960, after which petitioners again cultivated the property.

Documentary and Rebuttal Evidence

Petitioners produced a prior Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 April 1953 executed by Pilar Diaz in favor of Dionisio, which described the same portion allegedly conveyed by the 1956 deed except for an interchange in the date of approval of the subdivision plan (the prior deed indicated September 5, 1935, whereas the 1956 deed indicated September 5, 1953). Petitioners also introduced ten standard documents showing Cipriano’s signatures for comparison and highlighted discrepancies in the putative 1956 signature. Respondents eventually located a copy of the 1956 deed in the National Archives, which they used to secure Tax Declaration No. 23959.

Regional Trial Court Decision

The Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, in Civil Case No. CEB-20620, rendered judgment on 6 April 2004 annulling the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956, ordering cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959 and reinstatement of Tax Declaration No. 07764, directing respondents to demolish the house standing on Lot No. 5053-H, and awarding attorneys fees and litigation expenses to petitioners. The RTC found that respondents’ forty-year failure to produce the deed was not satisfactorily explained and concluded that the deed was a forgery. The RTC’s conclusion rested on expert handwriting analysis showing significant differences in letter formation between the questioned and standard signatures; the existence of the 1953 deed which rendered it implausible that Dionisio bought the same property twice; irregularities in the residence-certificate entries and notarial register; and archival anomalies such as the unusually white paper of the purported deed and its late forwarding to the Bureau of Archives.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On 25 May 2006 the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC. The CA emphasized the presumption of authenticity and due execution accorded to notarized documents and deemed the 1956 deed to be an ancient document that remained unaltered, arguing that this status favored its genuineness. The CA questioned the document examiner’s work, stating that he examined only a machine copy and that he could not determine forgery with certainty because the standard signatures themselves exhibited variations. The CA also credited the fact that respondents’ house stood on the property and concluded that respondents were the actual possessors, thus dismissing petitioners’ complaint.

Issues on Review

Petitioners sought this Court’s review under Rule 45, Rules of Court, contending that the CA erred in four respects: (1) finding that petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of regularity attaching to the assailed deed; (2) concluding that the document examiner could not establish forgery with certainty; (3) finding that respondents were in actual possession of Lot No. 5053-H; and (4) denying petitioners’ claim for attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

Standard of Review and Exceptions Applied

The Court observed that petitions under Rule 45, Rules of Court ordinarily present questions of law, with factual findings of the Court of Appeals generally binding when issues of fact are involved. The Court, however, applied recognized exceptions permitting reexamination of factual findings when the CA’s findings are contrary to those of the trial court. Citing the exceptions listed in Heirs of Ampil v. Manahan, G.R. No. 175990, 11 October 2012, the Court concluded that this case warranted de novo consideration of the factual findings given the contradiction between the RTC and the CA.

Supreme Court Ruling

This Court reversed and set aside the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC Decision in all respects. The Court held that petitioners presented clear and convincing evidence that the 27 June 1956 Deed of Absolute Sale was forged, that petitioners maintained rightful ownership and possession of Lot No. 5053-H, that the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 07764 and issuance of Tax Declaration No. 23959 were irregular, and that petitioners were entitled to attorneys fees and litigation expenses.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court reiterated that notarized documents enjoy a presumption of regularity and due execution but that this presumption is disputable and may be overturned by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The Court accepted the documentary and expert evidence provided by petitioners. It found the document examiner’s testimony credible and expressly rejected the CA’s suggestion that only a machine copy was examined, noting that the examiner had examined the original at the archives and relied on a machine copy in court proceedings. The examiner reported significant differences in letter formation and other individual handwriting characteristics between the questioned and standard signatures; the Court accepted his explanation that genuine signatures may vary yet retain consistent individual characteristics, citing Cesar v. Sandiganbayan, 219 Phil. 87 (1985). The Court further relied on the RTC’s independent visual comparison of the questioned signature with eleven standard signatures, noting specific discrepancies in the capital letters “C” and “T.” The Court treated the 1953 deed from Pilar Diaz as strongly corroborative of forgery because it described the same portion of Lot No. 5053-H and since respondents offered no cogent explanation for how Dionisio could have validly purchased the same piece twice. The Court also weighed longstanding taxation and possession facts: petitioners and their predecessors had cultivated the property and paid t

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms