EVIDENCE CASES

G.R. No. 179323 November 28, 2011

VICENTE MANZANO, JR., Petitioner

vs.
MARCELINO GARCIA, Respondent

FACTS:

This case involves a parcel of land covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-
25464, issued in the name of respondent Marcelino D. Garcia. The said property was
the subject of a deed of pacto de retro sale allegedly executed by Garcia in favor of
Constancio Manzano, the predecessor-in-interest and brother of petitioner Vicente
Manzano, Jr. (Vicente).

On July 12, 1992, Constancio Manzano passed away. His properties, including the
subject of this case, were adjudicated to his heirs by virtue of a deed of extrajudicial
partition with special power of attorney executed by them. Vicente was named the
administrator of the intestate estate of Constancio Manzano

Garcia did not redeem the subject property within the three-month period.
Consequently, Vicente instituted a petition for consolidation of ownership over the
property. Garcia alleged that the document evidencing the pacto de retro sale was a
forgery. Garcia testified that the signatures appearing in the pacto de retro sale were not
his and his wifes. He presented his passport and drivers license, both of which bear an
entirely different signature than what appeared in the pacto de retro sale document

Atty. Demosthenes Mediante, Jr. (Atty. Mediante), the person who notarized the deed of
conveyance in question, and Perla Babano, one of the witnesses to the execution of the
pacto de retro sale, testified that the person who introduced himself as Marcelino G.
Garcia and signed the document is not the same Marcelino Garcia who was in court
during the trial of the case

The trial court held that Garcia failed to prove that his signature in the pacto de retro
sale was forged. According to the court, Garcia should have presented an expert
witness to determine whether the signatures were made by the same person. The trial
court doubted the testimonies of Atty. Mediante (the notary public) and Babano (one of
the witnesses to the pacto de retro sale).

According to the Court of Appeals, there is no rule requiring expert testimony to

determine the genuineness of a signature appearing on a document. Since it was
plainly obvious from the evidence on record that the signature appearing on the pacto
de retro sale is far different from the customary signature of Garcia that appeared in his
passport and drivers license, the testimony of Garcia that the signature was not his is
sufficient evidence of the forgery pursuant to Section 50, Rule 130 of the Rules of Court.
The Court of Appeals added that on the basis of Atty. Mediantes testimony, the
presumption of regularity in the execution of the public document has been sufficiently
destroyed and overcome. The Court of Appeals concluded that the pacto de retro sale
is void ab initio.

ISSUE: Whether or not that the court of appeals erred when it declared there is no need
of a handwriting expert to determine which document is forged.
RULING:

It is plainly apparent to this Court that the alleged signature of Garcia in the pacto de
retro sale is utterly dissimilar from his customary signature appearing in the evidence on
record, as well as in the verifications of the pleadings before this Court and the courts a
quo. From this circumstance alone, we are constrained to affirm the ruling of the Court
of Appeals finding that the pacto de retro sale was forged and, therefore, void ab initio.

In assailing the finding of the Court of Appeals that the signature of Garcia in the pacto
de retro sale was forged, Vicente echoes the opinion of the trial court that Garcia should
have presented an expert witness to prove the same. Jurisprudence, however, is
replete with instances wherein this Court dispensed with the testimony of expert
witnesses to prove forgeries. Thus, in Estacio v. Jaranilla, we held:

It bears stressing that the trial court may validly determine forgery from its
own independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand. This
the trial court judge can do without necessarily resorting to experts,
especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimen
of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones.
Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court,
by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting 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.1[18]

Insisting on the need to present an expert witness, Vicente points out our ruling in
Rivera v. Turiano, wherein we declared:

While it is true that the testimonies of handwriting experts are not

necessary, however, pursuant to the criteria enunciated in Ladignon, the
private respondent must not only show material differences between or
among the signatures. In addition, (1) he must demonstrate the extent,
kind, and significance of the variation; (2) he must prove that the variation
is due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an
expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same
writer; and (3) he must show that the resemblance is a result of a more or
less skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristi9c
resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing.

In the case at bar, however, the variance in the alleged signature of Garcia in the pacto
de retro sale, on one hand, and in the evidence on record and in the verifications of the
pleadings before this Court and the courts a quo, on the other hand, was enormous and
obvious, such that this Court can readily conclude that the pacto de retro sale was in all
likelihood made by someone who has not even seen the customary signature of Garcia.
Furthermore, the falsity of the signature on the pacto de retro sale was affirmed by two
persons present when the instrument was signed, one of which is the very person who
notarized the same. An examination of their testimonies reveals that the trial court had
disregarded their statements for very flimsy reasons

G.R. No. 198240 July 3, 2013

LUISA NAVARRO MARCOS*, Petitioner,

vs.
THE HEIRS OFTHE LATE DR. ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., namely NONITA
NAVARRO, FRANCISCA NAVARRO MALAPITAN, SOLEDAD NAVARRO
BROCHLER, NONITA BARRUN NAVARRO, JR., IMELDA NAVARRO, ANDRES
NAVARRO III, MILAGROS NAVARRO YAP, PILAR NAVARRO, TERESA NAVARRO-
TABITA, and LOURDES BARRUN-REJUSO, Respondents.

FACTS:
Spouses Andres Navarro, Sr. and Concepcion Medina-Navarro died in 1958 and 1993,
respectively and left behind several parcels of land.

The spouses were survived by their daughters Luisa Navarro Marcos, herein petitioner,
and Lydia Navarro Grageda, and the heirs of their only son Andres Navarro, Jr. The
heirs of Andres, Jr. are the respondents herein.

Petitioner and her sister Lydia discovered that respondents are claiming exclusive
ownership of the subject lot. Respondents based their claim on the Affidavit of Transfer
of Real Property where Andres, Sr. donated the subject lot to Andres, Jr.

Believing that the affidavit is a forgery, the sisters, through Assistant Fiscal Andres
Marcos, requested a handwriting examination of the affidavit. The PNP handwriting
expert PO2 Mary Grace Alvarez found that Andres, Sr.s signature on the affidavit and
the submitted standard signatures of Andres, Sr. were not written by one and the same
person.

Thus, the sisters sued the respondents for annulment of the deed of donation. After the
pre-trial, respondents moved to disqualify PO2 Alvarez as a witness.

RTC granted respondents motion and disqualified PO2 Alvarez as a witness. The RTC
ruled that PO2 Alvarezs supposed testimony would be hearsay as she has no personal
knowledge of the alleged handwriting of Andres, Sr. Also, there is no need for PO2
Alvarez to be presented, if she is to be presented as an expert witness, because her
testimony is not yet needed.

ISSUE: Whether or not PO2 Alvarez is disqualified as a witness.

RULING:
We disagree with the RTC that PO2 Alvarezs testimony would be hearsay. Under
Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence, PO2 Alvarez is allowed to render an
expert opinion.

Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence is clear that the opinion of an expert
witness may be received in evidence, to wit:
SEC. 49. Opinion of expert witness.The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring
special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be
received in evidence.

True, the use of the word "may" in Section 49, Rule 130 of the Rules on Evidence
signifies that the use of opinion of an expert witness is permissive and not mandatory on
the part of the courts. Jurisprudence is also replete with instances wherein this Court
dispensed with the testimony of expert witnesses to prove forgeries. However, we have
also recognized that handwriting experts are often offered as expert witnesses
considering the technical nature of the procedure in examining forged documents. More
important, analysis of the questioned signature in the deed of donation executed by the
late Andres Navarro, Sr. in crucial to the resolution of the case.

In sum, the RTC should not have disqualified P02 Alvarez as a witness. She has the
qualifications of witness and possess none of the disqualifications under the Rules. The
Rules allow the opinion of an expert witness to be received as evidence. The value of
P02 Alvarez's expert opinion cannot be determined if P02 Alvarez is not even allowed to
testify on the handwriting examination she conducted.

GR. No. 165318 April 22, 2008

Teodora A. Pontaoe and Eduardo A. Pontaoe, Petitioners
vs.
Amando A. Pontaoe and Dr. Alejandro G. Pontaoe, Respondents.

Facts:
Teodora Pontaoe, Eduardo Pontaoe and Amando Pontaoe are surviving children of the
spouses Juan Pontaoe and his second wife, Tomasa Aquino. Dr. Alejandro Pontaoe is
the only child of their late half-brother, Norberto, son of Juan and his first wife.

Juan and Dr. Alejandro were the registered co-owners of a parcel of land. The spouses
Juan and Tomasa allegedly executed a Deed of Conveyance over the one-half portion
in favor of their son Eduardo. Subsequently, a Deed of Quitclaim executed by Dr.
Alejandro vested Eduardo with ownership over the one-half portion. Afterwards,
Eduardo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the entire property in favor of his sister,
Teodora.

Amando and Dr. Alejandro, claim that the signatures appearing in the Deed of
Conveyance were not Juan and Tomasas signatures. They also claim that the
signature appearing in the Deed of Quitclaim allegedly executed is not the signature of
Dr. Alejandro. Likewise, the signature appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale allegedly
executed was not the signature of Tomasa. Hence, the Deed of Conveyance, Deed of
Quitclaim and and Deed of Absolute Sale are invalid and there was no valid transfer of
ownership to Eduardo and Teodora. The properties should then be co-owned by
Eduardo, Teodora, Amando and Dr. Alejandro as heirs of the late spouses Juan and
Tomasa.

During the trial, the lower court found out that the signature of Juan appearing in the
Deed of Conveyance was substantially different from his admittedly genuine and
authentic signatures. The trial court likewise ruled that, with respect to the Deed of
Quitclaim, the signature of Dr. Alejandro had marked differences from the signatures
which were indisputably affixed by him in other documents. Moreover, Dr. Alejandro
was in the United States of America on the date he allegedly affixed his signature on the
Deed of Quitclaim. Thus, the trial court declared the Deed of Quitclaim invalid.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals declared the Deed of Conveyance and the Deed of
Quitclaim null and void.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals and the trial court erred in ruling that the signatures
of Juan and Dr. Alejandro were forgeries.

Ruling:
The SC affirmed the appellate courts findings. Petitioners argued that the courts should
have employed handwriting experts and not merely made their own findings based
solely on their examination and comparison of the signatures. Handwriting experts are
usually helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical
procedure involved in analyzing them, but resort to these experts is not mandatory or
indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwritings. A finding of forgery
does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge
must conduct an examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a
reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity The opinions of handwriting experts are not
binding upon courts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity
or dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens of the
questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. Moreover, Section 22 of
Rule 132 of the Rules of Court likewise explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a
comparison of the disputed handwriting 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.

GR. NO. 171497 APRIL 4, 2011

MARIA LOURDES TAMANI, CONCEPCION TAMANI, ESTRELLATAMANI,
TERESITA TAMANI, AZUCENA SOLEDAD, DOLORES GUERRERO, CRISTINA
TUGADE DAMIETA MANSAANG, MANUEL TAMANI, VALERIANA CASTRO,
AURORA SANTIAGO and ROSARIO CASTILLO,Petitioners,
vs.
ROMAN SALVADOR and FILOMENA BRAVO,
Respondents.

Facts:
A complaint for quieting of title was filed by respondent spouses Roman Salvador and
Filomena Bravo against petitioners who are the surviving children and legal heirs of the
spouses Demetrio Tamani and Josefa Caddauan over a parcel of land

Respondents and the Spouses Tamani are co-owners of an undivided parcel of land
with an area of 776 sq. m. Under said title, respondents own 345 sq. m. of the property
whereas the Spouses Tamani own the remaining 431 sq. m. (disputed property).

The Spouses Tamani allegedly sold the disputed property to Milagros Cruz (Cruz) as
evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Subsequently, Cruz sold the disputed property
to respondents through a Deed of Absolute Sale for the same consideration.
Respondents thus acquired ownership over the whole area of 776 sq. m.

Petitioners argued that they were the lawful owners and were in actual possession of
the disputed property having inherited the same from their parents and that the
signature of their parents were forged and thus assail the validity of the Deed of
Absolute sale between Cruz and their parents.

During trial, at the instance of petitioners, the signature of Demetrio Tamani appearing
on the deed of sale and his standard signatures were submitted for examination and
comparison to the Questioned Documents Division of the National Bureau of
Investigation (NBI). Bienvenido C. Albacea, a document examiner of the NBI, filed a
report finding that the questioned and standard signatures Demetrio Tamani are written
by one and the same person. Dissatisfied with the NBI report, petitioners asked for
another examination of the signatures, this time submitting the same to the Philippine
National Police (PNP) Crime Laboratory Service. Mely Sorra, a document examiner of
the PNP, filed a report finding that the questioned signature and the standard signatures
were written by two different persons

The RTC rendered a Decision ruling in petitioners favor. Confronted with conflicting
testimonies from handwriting experts, the RTC gave more weight to the PNP report and
testimony of Sorra because of her educational, professional and work background.
Dissatisfied with the decision of the RTC, respondents filed a Notice of Appeal. The CA
ruled in respondents favor.

Issue:
Whether or not the Court of Appeals disused the proper role of an appellate court
in cases where there are conflicting expert testimonies and improperly interpreted
their duty to independently evaluate the authenticity of the signature of the late
Demetrio Tamani.

Ruling:
Well settled is the rule that in the exercise of power of review the findings of facts of the
CA are conclusive and binding on this Court. However, there are recognized
exceptions, among which is when the factual findings of the trial court and the appellate
court are conflicting. The disagreement between the RTC and the CA in their respective
factual conclusions with regard to the alleged forgery of the signature of Tamani
authorizes this Court to re-examine the testimonies and evidence submitted by the
parties. It is noteworthy to point out that two expert witnesses testified, each with a
different opinion on the issue at hand.

Before anything else, this Court observes that the present spectacle of having two
expert witnesses with conflicting findings could have been avoided had respondents
timely objected to petitioners motion to have a second re-examination of Tamanis
signature. After all, respondents are correct in their claim that the first examination was
at the instance of petitioners. Respondents should have, therefore, objected to the
second re-examination, as the RTC would have likely sustained the motion. However, a
perusal of the records would show that counsel for respondents never objected to
petitioners motion for a re-examination of Tamanis signature.

While credentials of an expert witness play a factor in the evidentiary and persuasive
weight of his testimony, the same cannot be the sole factor in determining its value. The
CA was thus correct when it declared that the judge must conduct his own independent
examination of the signatures under scrutiny.

The value of the opinion of a handwriting expert depends not upon his mere statements
of whether a writing is genuine or false, but upon the assistance he may afford in
pointing out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between
genuine and false specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or
detection from an unpracticed observer. While admittedly this Court was unable to fully
comprehend all the differences noted by Sorra given that her testimony was fairly
technical in nature and description, it would, however, not be amiss to state that this
Court has observed a good number of the differences noted by her. Lastly, while it was
improper for the RTC to rely solely on Sorras credentials, her superior credentials,
compared to that of Albacea, give added value to her testimony.
Withal, although there is no direct evidence to prove forgery, preponderance of
evidence inarguably favors petitioners. In civil cases, the party having the burden of
proof must establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. Preponderance of
evidence is the weight, credit, and value of the aggregate evidence on either side and is
usually considered to be synonymous with the term "greater weight of the evidence" or
"greater weight of the credible evidence. It is evidence which is more convincing to the
court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition thereto.