G.R. No.

205681 : July 1, 2015

JANET CARBONELL, Petitioner, v. JULITA A. CARBONELL-MENDES,
REPRESENTED BY HER BROTHER AND ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VIRGILIO
A. CARBONELL, Respondent.
CARPIO, J.:
FACTS:
Respondent Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes filed a complaint for Declaration of
Nullity of Documents, Annulment of Title, Reconveyance, Recovery of
Possession and Ownership, Declaration of Bad Faith of Mortgage Bank and
Damages against Spouses Bonifacio and Janet Carbonell (Spouses Carbonell)
and the Rural Bank of Bayambang, Pangasinan. Petitioner and Bonifacio are
now separated.
Respondent alleged in the complaint that she is the owner of a residential
land located in Barangay Carmen, Rosales, Pangasinan, covered by TCT No.
T45306 and registered under her maiden name, Julita Carbonell. TCT No.
T45306 was later cancelled and replaced by TCT No.51120 in the name of
the Spouses Carbonell. Respondent contended that TCT No. T-51120 should
be annulled since it was issued on the basis of a simulated and fictitious
Deed of Absolute Sale. Respondent, a permanent resident of Canada, was
then in Canada when the fictitious Deed of Absolute Sale was executed with
her forged signature. She discovered the fictitious sale only in December
2005 during her vacation in the Philippines. The case against Rural Bank was
later dismissed since the Spouses Carbonell had already paid their mortgage
indebtedness.
For the defense, petitioner testified that she and her husband bought the
property from Juanita Tulio for P 200,000, and paid in installments. She
stated that they started paying for the property in 1994 and that in 1997,
her husband gave her the title to the property which was already under their
name. Other than TCT No. T-51120, petitioner failed to present any other
document to prove that they purchased the property.
The RTC ruled in favor of the respondent finding that the respondents
signature was indeed forged on the Deed of Absolute Sale. On appeal, the

Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling of the RTC. Hence, this petition for
review on certiorari.
ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer was valid since the respondents
signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged?
HELD: The Court finds the petition is without merit.
REMEDIAL LAW: questions of law in a petition for review on
certiorari
Petitioner in this case is raising a question of fact: whether the signature of
respondent was forged on the Deed of Absolute Sale, which would invalidate
TCT No. T-51120 issued in the name of Spouses Carbonell. The issue raised
by petitioner is clearly a question of fact which requires a review of the
evidence presented. This Court is not a trier of facts, and it is not its function
to examine, review, or evaluate the evidence all over again.
A petition for review on certiorari under Section 1, Rule 45 of the Rules of
Court should cover only questions of law. In a petition for review on
certiorari under Rule 45, the Court is generally limited to reviewing only
errors of law. Nevertheless, the Court has enumerated several exceptions to
this rule, such as when: (1) the conclusion is grounded on speculations,
surmises or conjectures; (2) the inference is manifestly mistaken, absurd or
impossible; (3) there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) the judgment is based
on misapprehension of facts; (5) the findings of fact are conflicting; (6)
there is no citation of specific evidence on which the factual findings are
based; (7) the findings of absence of facts are contradicted by the presence
of evidence on record; (8) the findings of the Court of Appeals are contrary
to those of the trial court; (9) the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked
certain relevant and undisputed facts that, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion; (10) the findings of the Court of Appeals are
beyond the issues of the case; and (11) such findings are contrary to the
admissions of both parties.
Petitioner failed to show that this case falls under any of the exceptions. The
finding of forgery by the RTC was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Factual
findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are
deemed binding and conclusive.

REMEDIAL LAW: proving the genuineness of a handwriting (Section

22, Rule 132)
The Court finds no justifiable reason to deviate from the finding of the RTC
and the Court of Appeals that the signature of respondent was forged on the
Deed of Absolute Sale, which was clearly established by the evidence
presented during the trial.
Under Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, among the methods of
proving the genuineness of the handwriting are through a witness familiar
with such handwriting or a comparison by the court of the questioned
handwriting and the admitted genuine specimens of the handwriting. In this
case, respondent, the purported writer or signatory to the Deed of Absolute
Sale, testified that her signature was forged. To prove the forgery,
respondent presented, among others, her Canadian and Philippine passports,
drivers license, citizenship card, and health card, showing her genuine
signature which was clearly different from the signature on the Deed of
Absolute Sale.
The RTC found "significant differences in terms of handwriting strokes, as
well as the shapes and sizes of letters, fairly suggesting that the plaintiff
Julita A. Carbonell-Mendes was not the author of the questioned signature."
Signatures on a questioned document may be examined by the trial court
judge and compared with the admitted genuine signatures to determine the
issue of authenticity of the contested document.
Petition is denied.