Bautista Vs CA
Bautista Vs CA
Bautista Vs CA
FACTS
The dispute involved a parcel of land in Sampaloc, Manila belonging to Cesar Morelos which he
sold to his niece, petitioner Laura Bautista. Now private respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming
to be an illegitimate child of Cesar, filed a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and title
before RTC-Manila.
On the one hand, the respondent presented testimonies of expert witnesses who claimed that
the signature of Cesar Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint appearing on
his Residence Certificate were not his:
1. Chief Examiner of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service, that the signature of
decedent on the questioned instrument, when compared to other documents bearing the
authentic signature of Cesar Morelos, did not match and appeared to have been authored by a
different person.
2. Chief of the Fingerprint Division of the PC-INP, testified that the thumbmark of Cesar
Morelos appearing on the residence certificate indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale,
when compared to those affixed on previous residence certificates issued to the decedent,
did not match and appears to be the thumbmark of another person.
On the other hand, the petitioners argued for the validity of the sale and that the witness to the
Deed of Sale testified that she saw Cesar Morelos and petitioner Laura Bautista sign the same.
RTC-Manila declared the Deed of Sale to be valid. But the Court of Appeals reversed declaring
it to be void, and ordered for the cancellation of the TCT.
ISSUE: Whether the expert testimonies are conclusive to be a strong basis to nullify a duly
executed and notarized Deed of Absolute Sale
HELD: NO. The Deed of Absolute Sale is valid.
Under Rule 132, Section 22 of the Rules of Court, the genuineness of handwriting may be
proved in the following manner: (1) by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such
person because he has seen the person write; or he has seen 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 genuine by the party, against whom the evidence is
offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.
It is well-settled 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.
As a general rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and
convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. In Heirs of Severa
P. Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, we held that due to the technicality of the procedure involved in
the examination of the forged documents, the expertise of questioned document examiners is
usually helpful; however, resort to questioned document examiners is not mandatory and while
probably useful, they are not indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting.
Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts.
Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the
issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of
the handwriting expert.
The authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions
concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology or molecular biology, would constitute matters of
a highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a
questioned signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered
by a specialist on a highly technical issue.
In the case at bar, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery
and fraud. As against direct evidence consisting of the testimony of a witness who was
physically present at the signing of the contract and who had personal knowledge thereof, the
testimony of an expert witness constitutes indirect or circumstantial evidence at best. Carmelita
Marcelino, the witness to the Deed of Absolute Sale, confirmed the genuineness, authenticity
and due execution thereof. Having been physically present to see the decedent Cesar Morelos
and petitioner Laura Bautista affix their signatures on the document, the weight of evidence
preponderates in favor of petitioners.
Witness for the respondent failed to establish the fact that the signature on the Deed of Absolute
Sale was not that of Cesar Morelos. He merely concluded that the document was a forgery
without citing any factual basis for arriving at that conclusion. Cruz did not point out
distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false
specimens of writing, which would ordinarily escape detection by an ordinary lay person.
When the trial court and the appellate court arrived at divergent factual assessments in their
respective decisions and the bases therefor refer to documents made available to the scrutiny of
both courts, the well-settled rule that factual findings of trial courts deserve respect and even
finality will not apply. In the case at bar, the varying factual assessments pertained to the
authenticity of the signature of the late Cesar Morelos on the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale
conveying the 105-square meter property in favor of his niece, Laura Bautista.
In Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian
Church in the United States of America, we held that the authenticity of a questioned signature
cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with
the genuine signature. Dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops
in the strokes, signs of stops, shades, that may be found between the questioned signature and
the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the former's authenticity. The result of
examinations of questioned handwriting, even with the benefit of aid of experts and scientific
instruments, is, at best, inconclusive. There are other factors that must be taken into
consideration, such as the position of the writer, the condition of the surface on which the paper
where the questioned signature is written, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of
pen and paper used. These play an important role on the general appearance of the signature.
Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or
circumstantial competent evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much weight
should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between a questioned
handwriting and an authentic one.
Besides, a notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein
expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. The authenticity and due execution
of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be upheld.
The Petition is GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. RTC’s decision is REINSTATED.