G.R. No. 209264 July 5, 2016 In June 1996, Maristela discovered that TCT No.

In June 1996, Maristela discovered that TCT No. T-22749 covering Lot 2-C had been
cancelled and in its stead, TCT No. T-41382 was issued in the name of
DAMASO T. AMBRAY and CEFERINO T. AMBRAY, JR.,*Petitioners, petitioners.1âwphi1 It appears that by virtue of a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale 14
vs (Deed of Sale) dated January 16, 1978, Ceferino, Sr., with the consent of Estela,
SYLVIA A. TSOUROUS, CARMENCITA AMBRAY-LAUREL, HEDY AMBRAY- allegedly sold "a portion of lot 2 of the consolidation subd. plan (LRC) Pcs-12441" 15 to
AZORES, VIVIEN AMBRAY-YATCO, NANCY AMBRAY-ESCUDERO, MARISTELA petitioners for a consideration of P150,000.00. The Deed of Sale was registered with
AMBRAY-ILAGAN, ELIZABETH AMBRAY-SORIANO, MA. LUISA FE AMBRAY- the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City only on February 5, 1996.16
ARCILLA, and CRISTINA AMBRAY-LABIT, Respondents.
This prompted respondents to file a criminal case for falsification of public document
DECISION against petitioners, entitled "People of the Philippines v. Damaso T Ambray and
Ceferino T Ambray" and docketed as Criminal Case No. 39153 (falsification case)
before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of San Pablo City. In a Decision 17
PERLAS-BERNABE, J.: dated October 30, 2000, the MTCC acquitted petitioners of the charge for failure of
the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Assailed in this petition for review on certiorari1are the Decision2 dated April 25, 2013
and the Resolution3 dated September 24, 2013 rendered by the Court of Appeals Thereafter, respondents filed the instant complaint 18 for annulment of title,
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 95606, affirming the Decision 4 dated June 11, 2010 of the reconveyance, and damages against petitioners and Estela (defendants), docketed
Regional Trial Court of San Pablo City, Branch 32 (RTC) in Civil Case No. SP- as Civil Case No. SP-5831(01), alleging that TCT No. T-41382 and the Deed of Sale
5831(01). were null and void because the signatures of Ceferino, Sr. and Estela thereon were
forgeries.
The Facts
In a motion to dismiss,19 defendants claimed that the issue on the authenticity of the
The subject matter of the present controversy is a parcel of land described as Lot 2-C signatures of Ceferino, Sr. and Estela on the Deed of Sale had already been passed
of subdivision plan Psd-04-009554, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. upon in the falsification case where petitioners were eventually acquitted; hence, the
T-413825 of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City (Lot 2-C) in the name of matter was res judicata. In an Order20 dated June 6, 2002, the RTC granted the
petitioners Damaso T. Ambray (Damaso), and Ceferino T. Ambray, Jr. (Ceferino, Jr.; motion and dismissed the case on said ground.
collectively, petitioners).
On appeal,21 however, the CA reversed the said disposition in a Decision22 dated
6
Petitioners and respondents Sylvia A. Tsourous, Carmencita Ambray-Laurel, Hedy September 29, 2005 in CA-G.R. CV No. 75507, finding that res judicata does not
Ambray-Azores, Vivien Ambray-Yatco, Nancy Ambray-Escudero, Maristela Ambray- apply. Thus, it remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings.
Ilagan (Maristela), Elizabeth Ambray-Soriano, Ma. Fe Luisa Ambray-Arcilla (Ma. Fe
Luisa),7 and Cristina Ambray-Labit are siblings. With the exception of Sylvia, 8 they are Before the RTC, petitioners filed their answer 23 and disclosed the death of their co-
the children of the late Ceferino Ambray (Ceferino, Sr.) and Estela Trias (Estela), who defendant and mother, Estela, who passed away on August 15, 2002.24 By way of
passed away on February 5, 1987 and August 15, 2002, respectively. defense, they averred, inter alia, that respondents were aware of the conveyance of
Lot 2-C to them through the Deed of Sale. They also claimed that respondents' action
During their lifetime, Ceferino, Sr. and Estela owned several properties, one of which has prescribed, and maintained that it was barred by prior judgment and res
was a parcel of land located in San Pablo City, Laguna denominated as Lot 2 of judicata.25
subdivision plan Pcs-12441, with an area of 4,147 square meters, more or less,
covered by TCT No. T-112599 of the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City (Lot 2). On Subsequently, citing an Affidavit26 dated February 18, 2008 executed by Ma. Fe
December 28, 1977, Ceferino, Sr. mortgaged Lot 2 with Manila Bank for the amount Luisa, the rest of the respondents moved27 that she be dropped as a plaintiff, which
of P180,000.00. The mortgage was discharged on September 16, 1984.10 the RTC granted.28 Thereafter, she was ordered29 impleaded as a party-defendant in
respondents' supplemental complaint. Later, she adopted30 petitioners' answer with
Prior to the discharge of the mortgage or sometime in August 1984, Lot 2 was counterclaim in response thereto.
subdivided into three (3) lots: Lot 2-A, Lot 2-B, and the subject property, Lot 2-C,
resulting in the cancellation ofTCT No. T-11259. Lot 2-C was registered in Ceferino, The RTC Ruling
Sr.' s name in accordance with his letter11 dated August 29, 1984 requesting the
Register of Deeds of San Pablo City to register Lot 2-C in his name. Thus, TCT No.
T-2274912 was issued covering the said parcel under the name of Ceferino, Sr., In a Decision31 dated June 11, 2010, the RTC nullified the Deed of Sale as well as
married to Estela.13 TCT No. T-41382 in the name of petitioners and rendered judgment in favor of
respondents as follows:
a. Declaring Lot 2-C, Psd-04-009554, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- Petitioners and respondents separately appealed37 to the CA. Petitioners imputed
41382, as common property of the Heirs of Ceferino Ambray, Sr. and Estela Trias, to error upon the R TC in declaring null and void the subject Deed of Sale and TCT No.
be divided equally among the heirs; T-41382,38 while respondents questioned the RTC's refusal to grant damages and
attorney's fees in their favor.39
b. Declaring as null and void the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 16, 1978,
purportedly executed between Ceferino Ambray and Estela Trias, as vendors, and The CA Ruling
Damaso T. Ambray and Ceferino Ambray, Jr., as vendees, of the portion of Lot 2,
Pcs-12441, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-11259; In a Decision40 dated April 25, 2013, the CA affirmed the RTC Decision and found that
respondents were able to sufficiently discharge the required burden of proof that the
c. Declaring as null and void Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-41382 in the name of subject Deed of Sale is spurious.
Damaso T. Ambray, married to Mary Ann Loyola, and Ceferino T. Ambray, Jr.;
The CA also denied the award of moral damages for lack of factual basis.
d. Directing the defendants Damaso T. Ambray and Ceferino T. Ambray, Jr. to Consequently, without moral damages, it found that no exemplary damages may be
reconvey Lot 2-C, Psd-04-009554 covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T- given.41 Finally, the CA held that the award of attorney's fees was not warranted
41382 to the co-ownership of the Heirs of Ceferino Ambray, Sr. and Estela Trias, for under the circumstances of the case, the same being an exception and not the
distribution in equal shares among the said heirs; and general rule.42

e. Directing the Register of Deeds of San Pablo City, to cancel Transfer Certificate of Both petitioners43 and respondents44 moved for reconsideration of the CA's Decision,
Title No. T-41382 in the name of Damaso T. Ambray and Ceferino Ambray, Sr., and which were denied in a Resolution45 dated September 24, 2014; hence, this petition.
cause the issuance of a new Transfer Certificate of Title, in the name of the Heirs of
Ceferino Ambray, Sr. and Estela Trias. The Issue Before the Court

The RTC found that respondents were able to prove, by a preponderance of The sole issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA erred in affirming
evidence, that the Deed of Sale executed by Ceferino, Sr. conveying Lot 2-C in favor the RTC's nullification of the Deed of Sale dated January 16, 1978 and TCT No. T-
of petitioners was spurious and of dubious origin. 32 It held that at the time of its 41382 covering Lot 2-C in the name of petitioners.
execution in 1978, Ceferino, Sr. could not have sold a specific portion of Lot 2 to
petitioners, considering that it was subdivided only in 1984. Moreover, after the
subdivision of Lot 2 in 1984, Ceferino, Sr. requested the Register of Deeds of San The Court's Ruling
Pablo City to register Lot 2-C in his name, which he would not have done had he
already sold Lot 2-C to petitioners.33 The petition is meritorious.

Furthermore, Ceferino, Sr. leased Lot 2-C to MB Finance Corporation from 1986 to At the outset, it should be pointed out that, as a general rule, a re-examination of
1989 in his capacity as the owner of the subject property. Subsequent thereto, as factual findings cannot be done by the Court acting on a petition for review on
administrator of Ceferino, Sr. 's properties upon the latter's death, Damaso executed certiorari because it is not a trier of facts and only reviews questions of law.46 This
a contract renewing the lease of Lot 2-C to MB Finance Corporation. The RTC opined rule, however, admits of certain exceptions, namely: (1) when the findings are
that the foregoing facts militate against petitioners' purported ownership of Lot 2-C grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when the inference
pursuant to the Deed of Sale.34 made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave
abuse of discretion; (4) when the judgment is based on a misapprehension of facts;
Finally, when confronted with the belated registration of the Deed of Sale in 1996, (5) when the findings of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court
petitioners could only offer the excuse that their mother, Estela, kept the copy thereof of Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
until she became sickly and finally gave the same to Damaso. The RTC declared the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the findings are contrary
same to be a mere afterthought.35 to the trial court; (8) when the findings are conclusions without citation of specific
evidence on which they are based; (9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well
as in the petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10)
With respect to the issue of forgery of the signatures of Ceferino, Sr. and Estela on when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence of evidence
the subject Deed of Sale, the RTC took note of the CA's opinion in CA-G.R. CV No. and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals
75507 that the MTCC, in the falsification case, made no categorical finding as to the manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
existence of falsification. Instead, the MTCC merely concluded that the prosecution properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. 47 Finding a confluence of
failed to establish petitioners' participation in the alleged falsification.36 certain exceptions in this case, the general rule that only legal issues may be raised
in a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court does not
apply, and the Court retains the authority to pass upon the evidence presented and While the principle of res judicata in the concept of conclusiveness of judgment, as
draw conclusions therefrom.48 espoused by petitioners,55 is of doubtful application in this case - considering that the
MTCC, in the falsification case, failed to categorically pronounce that the Deed of
At the core of the present controversy is the validity of the Deed of Sale, the Sale was not falsified and merely concluded that petitioners had no participation in
execution of which purportedly conveyed Lot 2-C in favor of petitioners. To gauge the any alleged falsification - the Court nonetheless observes that petitioners, through the
veracity thereof, it is imperative to pass upon the genuineness of the signatures of the testimony of Estela thereat, were able to establish the genuineness and due
seller, Ceferino, Sr., and his wife, Estela, who gave her consent to the sale, as execution of the subject Deed of Sale which effectively conveyed title over Lot 2-C to
appearing thereon, which respondents, in the present complaint, assert to be them. Estela's testimony constitutes direct evidence of the authenticity of the
forgeries. signatures on the Deed of Sale, having personal knowledge thereof, which
undeniably prevails over the written findings of a purported handwriting expert that
can only be considered indirect or circumstantial evidence.
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. One
who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a preponderance of Notably, the admissibility of Estela's former testimony in the present case finds basis
evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which in Section 47, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence or the "rule on former testimony"
is offered in opposition to it. The fact of forgery can only be established by a which provides:
comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine
signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.49 Section 47. Testimony or deposition at a former proceeding. – The testimony or
deposition of a witness deceased or unable to testify, given in a former case or
Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness of handwriting proceeding, judicial or administrative, involving the same parties and subject matter,
may be proved in the following manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the may be given in evidence against the adverse party who had the opportunity to cross-
handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write; or he has seen examine him.
writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged; (2) by
a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as Case law holds that for the said rule to apply, the following requisites must be
genuine by the party, against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine satisfied: (a) the witness is dead or unable to testify; (b) his testimony or deposition
to the satisfaction of the judge.50 Corollary thereto, jurisprudence states that the was given in a former case or proceeding, judicial or administrative, between the
presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud. same parties or those representing the same interests; (c) the former case involved
As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was the same subject as that in the present case, although on different causes of action;
physically present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge (d) the issue testified to by the witness in the former trial is the same issue involved in
thereof, the testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial the present case and (e) the adverse party had an opportunity to cross-examine the
evidence at best.51 witness in the former case.56 The reasons for the admissibility of testimony taken at a
former trial or proceeding are the necessity for the testimony and its trustworthiness.
In this case, the only direct evidence presented by respondents to prove their However, before the former testimony can be introduced in evidence, the proponent
allegation of forgery is Questioned Documents Report No. 266-39752 dated March 24, must first lay the proper predicate therefor, i.e., the party must establish the basis for
1997 issued by National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Document Examiner II Antonio the admission of testimony in the realm of admissible evidence.57
R. Magbojos (Magbojos), stating that the signatures of Ceferino, Sr. and Estela on the
Deed of Sale, when compared to standard sample signatures, are not written by one Records show that Estela died during the pendency of these proceedings before the
and the same person. RTC or on August 15, 2002. Her death transpired before the presentation of the
parties' evidence could ensue. However, she was able to testify on direct and cross-
In refutation, petitioners offered in evidence, inter alia, the testimony of their mother, examination in the falsification case and affirmed that the alleged forged signatures
Estela, in the falsification case where petitioners were previously acquitted. In the appearing on the Deed of Sale were, indeed, hers and her deceased husband,
course thereof, she identified53 the signatures on the Deed of Sale as hers and Ceferino, Sr.'s. The parties in the falsification case involved respondents and
Ceferino, Sr.' s, which was fully corroborated54 by Atty. Zosimo Tanalega (Atty. petitioners herein, and the subject matter therein and in this case are one and the
Tanalega), the notary public who notarized the subject Deed of Sale and was present same, i.e., the genuineness and authenticity of the signatures of Ceferino, Sr. and
at the time the Ambray spouses affixed their signatures thereon. Estela.

Between the Questioned Documents Report presented by respondents and the Clearly, the former testimony of Estela in the falsification case, being admissible in
testimony given by Estela in the falsification case in support of petitioners' defense, evidence in these proceedings, deserves significant consideration. She gave positive
the Court finds greater evidentiary weight in favor of the latter. Hence, respondent's testimony that it was Ceferino, Sr. himself who signed the Deed of Sale that conveyed
complaint for annulment of title, reconveyance, and damages in Civil Case No. SP- Lot 2-C to petitioners. She likewise verified her signature thereon. By virtue of these
5831(01) should be dismissed. declarations, she confirmed the genuineness and authenticity of the questioned
signatures. Thus, it follows that the Deed of Sale itself is valid and duly executed, SO ORDERED.
contrary to the finding of the RTC, as affirmed by the CA, that it was of spurious
nature.

Further lending credence to the validity of the Deed of Sale is the well-settled
principle that a duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of
authenticity and due execution as well as the full faith and credence attached to a
public instrument. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear,
convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery
that gave rise to a spurious contract.58

Hence, for the above-state reasons, whatever inferences the RTC had observed
tending to defeat the existence of a valid sale in favor of petitioners are rendered
inconsequential.

In particular, the RTC noted, and found it puzzling, that the Deed of Sale did not
specifically mention the exact area that was being sold to petitioners, disposing only
of "a portion of lot 2" without specifying the metes and bounds thereof. As such, the
RTC concluded that Ceferino, Sr. could not have sold a specific portion of Lot 2 to
petitioners, having been subdivided only in 1984. However, Article 1463 of the Civil
Code expressly states that "[t]he sole owner of a thing may sell an undivided interest
therein." As Ceferino, Sr. was the sole owner of the original Lot 2 from whence came
Lot 2-C, he is therefore allowed by law to convey or sell an unspecified portion
thereof. Hence, the disposition of Lot 2-C to petitioners, a portion of Lot 2 yet to be
subdivided in 1978, was therefore valid.

That Ceferino, Sr. requested the registration of the title of Lot 2-C in his name in
1984, while the property was supposed to have already been sold to petitioners in
1978, was likewise fully explained during trial. Damaso clarified59 that their parents
were apprehensive that he and Ceferino might mortgage or squander the property
while they were still alive. Moreover, despite knowledge of the sale, they did not
demand for its immediate registration because during their father's lifetime, they
never questioned his decisions. This further explains why, despite the disposition in
petitioners' favor, it was Ceferino, Sr. himself who leased Lot 2-C to third parties,
which Damaso renewed in his father's name after the latter's death. The delay in the
transfer of the title over Lot 2-C to petitioners was also occasioned by the fact that
Estela kept the Deed of Sale in her custody and gave it to petitioners only later on, by
reason of her poor health.60 Be that as it may, and to reiterate, the delay in the
registration of the sale in favor of petitioners neither affects nor invalidates the same,
in light of the authenticity of the Deed of Sale itself.

In fine, the CA and the RTC both erred in finding that the Deed of Sale was of
spurious origin. The authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Sale must be
upheld against the assumptions made by the RTC in its Decision. Accordingly, TCT
No. T-41382 covering Lot 2-C in the name of petitioners remain valid.

WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The assailed April 25, 2013 Decision and
the September 24, 2013 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 95606
are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The instant complaint for annulment of title,
reconveyance, and damages is DISMISSED.