Spouses dela Rama vs Spouses Papa

Topics: Rules of evidence; Forged notarized deed of sile;

Facts:

Spouses dela Rama were registered owner of a parcel of land, covered by

TCT issued by ROD. Such land was purchased from Canlubang Sugar Estate(CSE).
The spouses dela Rama religiously paid the property taxes until 1993, after they
were informed by the assessor’s office that their title over the property was
cancelled and new TCT was issued in favour of Spouses Papa. Spouses dela Rama
filed a complaint for the Cancellation of Title obtained under forged deed of sale.
Spouses Papa claimed that the 1985 deed of sale was duly executed, evidenced by
notarized document sworn before Atty. Gumatang and they are purchaser in
good faith and for value. Spouses dela Rama on their part claims that the
signature was forged. The trial court ruled in favour of Spouses dela Rama,
however it was reversed by the CA on the ground that Spouses dela Rama did not
present clear and convincing evidence to prove forgery. The CA pointed out that
the testimony of Spouses dela Rama was self-serving.

Issue: WON Spouses dela Rama’s testimony prove that the sale was forgery.

Ruling: Yes.

The SC considered the fact that Spouses Papa admitted that the Deed of
Sale was notarized in the absence of the parties, hence the Deed of Sale is only
private document. Such defect did not ipso facto void the deed of sale. However,
it eliminates the presumptions that are carried by notarized public documents
and subject the deed of sale to a different level of scrutiny than that relied on by
the Court of Appeals. In other words, the evidence needed to establish forgery
became preponderance of evidence only. (Tigno v. Sps. Aquin)
The court also pointed out that it is well-established in the law of evidence that the testimony of
the very person whose signature is disputed is more than competent proof on the genuineness of
such signature.
Self-serving assertion of Juan that his signature is forged may only be negated by
other evidence or legal presumption. Since the document is private document,
the legal presumption of due execution of public document does not apply.

In addition, another corroborative piece of evidence of the petitioners, lay in the

fact that the dela Ramas had paid real estate taxes on the property until about
1993, or eight (8) years after the purported sale. Any reasonable person who had
sold his property would not undertake the unnecessary burden of continuing to
pay real property taxes on the same.

Doctrines:

1. While this Court is generally not a trier of fact, there are recognized
exceptions to that rule, such as when the findings of fact are conflicting, or
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant facts not
disputed by the parties and which, if properly considered, would justify a
different conclusion.
2. The Court of Appeals correctly observed that petitioners had the onus
probandi to establish such forgery. In concluding that petitioners failed to
discharge such burden, the
appellate court cited the rule upholding the presumption of regularity of a
notarized document.
3. Forgery: Clear, positive and convincing evidence.
4. Presumption under Section 19, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court: documents
acknowledged before a notary public except for last wills and testaments
are deemed as public documents; All other documents not enumerated
therein are private documents.
5. It is in fact wellestablished in the law of evidence that the testimony of the
very person whose signature is disputed is more than competent proof on
the genuineness of such signature.
6. It may be possible, as the Court of Appeals did in this case, to discount the
testimony of a plaintiff disavowing the authenticity of his purported
signature as selfserving, but such posture can only be warranted if the self-
serving assertion is negated by other evidence or legal presumptions.
Legend: It was an impressive gambit on the part of counsel for the petitioners
that produced spectacular results.