Case Summary (G.R. No. 177235)
Applicable Law
The case is governed by the provisions of the Civil Code of the Philippines applicable at the time of the transactions, specifically considering the rules regarding the consent required in the sale of conjugal property.
Background Facts
Leonardo G. Mendoza died on November 25, 1986. Aurora Mendoza Fermin, as the legitimate daughter, was appointed administratrix of his estate. In contrast, Serconsision R. Mendoza filed a property inventory which included Lot 39, Block 12 located in Parañaque City. Later, Aurora discovered that Leonardo and Serconsision sold the property to Eduardo C. Sanchez, evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 22, 1986, which was not registered until April 30, 1991. Aurora, suspecting forgery of her father’s signature on the Deed, filed a complaint contesting the sale and damages.
Proceedings and Findings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially found in favor of the petitioner, declaring valid the sale based on the allegedly genuine signature of Leonardo. The court dismissed the case, asserting that no credible evidence of forgery was presented. The RTC primarily relied on the testimony of Serconsision, who argued that Leonardo signed the deed in her presence. Aurora appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA).
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA reversed the RTC’s ruling, declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void. It found that the RTC did not sufficiently conduct an independent examination of the signatures. The CA, through its own assessment, determined the signatures in question were forgeries. The CA highlighted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the sale, such as Serconsision’s continued occupation of the property post-sale and conflicting narratives regarding the notarization of the deed.
Issues on Forgery
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle that a forgery claim must be supported by clear and convincing evidence, primarily through comparative analysis of the signatures. Expert testimonies presented were deemed significant, especially since the handwriting expert identified differences that indicated forgery conclusively.
Burden of Proof and Evidence
The party asserting forgery bore the burden of proof, which was met through Aurora's testimony and the testimonies of witnesses asserting familiarity with Leonardo's signature. The discrepancies noted in comparison with verified signatures strengthened the conclusion that the signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale were not executed by Leonardo.
Conclusion on Validity of the Sale
With the determination that the signatures were forged, the sale was declared to have never validly transferred ownership, thus incurring the annulment of the deed. Consequently, Aurora, as an heir, retained her rights over the property, which was p
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 177235)
Background of the Case
- The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court.
- It seeks to review and reverse the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated January 25, 2007, and March 28, 2007, respectively.
- The case originated from the testate proceedings of the estate of Leonardo G. Mendoza, who allegedly died married to petitioner Serconsision R. Mendoza on November 25, 1986.
Procedural History
- Respondent Aurora Mendoza Fermin, the legitimate and eldest daughter of Leonardo, was appointed administratrix of his estate.
- Petitioner submitted an inventory of properties, including a parcel of land (Lot 39, Block 12) in Parañaque City.
- Respondent discovered that her father and petitioner purportedly sold the said property to Eduardo C. Sanchez via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 22, 1986, but registered only on April 30, 1991.
Allegations of Fraudulent Sale
- Respondent alleged that the Deed of Absolute Sale was procured through forgery, claiming that the signatures on the document were not those of her father.
- She filed a case for Annulment of the Deed of Absolute Sale, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), and Damages on March 19, 1992.
Evidence Presented
- Respondent presented an expert handwriting witness, Noel Cruz from the NBI, who testified that the questioned signatures were not those of Leonardo.
- Another witness, Teresita Rosales, testified about witnessing the petitioner forge Leonardo's signature for various documents, including a marriage contract.
Petitioner’s Defense
- Petitioner denied the allegations of forgery and presented her own handwriting expert, Zacaria