The Supreme Court has affirmed that forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, placing the burden of proof squarely on the party alleging it. This means that in property disputes where forgery is claimed, the person making the claim must present compelling evidence to support it. This ruling underscores the importance of due diligence and thorough investigation when challenging the authenticity of signatures on legal documents.

Challenging a Signature: When a Land Dispute Turns on Alleged Forgery

This case revolves around a petition filed by Betty Gepulle-Garbo seeking to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 136900, which was registered under the names of Spouses Victorey Antonio Garabato and Josephine S. Garabato. Betty claimed that the signatures of Nick Garbo and Eduviges Garabato on a Deed of Sale from 1977 were forged by Florence Garabato, Victorey’s mother. This original deed transferred the property from Eduviges to Florence, Victorey’s mother, ultimately leading to Victorey’s ownership. The central question before the Court was whether Betty provided sufficient evidence to prove the alleged forgery, thereby invalidating the chain of title leading to Victorey’s ownership.

The petitioner, Betty, presented several pieces of evidence to support her claim of forgery. She submitted a report from a handwriting expert, Mr. Bienvenido Albacea, who concluded that the signatures of Nick Garbo on the disputed deed were not authentic. Additionally, she highlighted that Nick Garbo had previously sought an NBI examination of his signature and filed a criminal complaint for falsification against Florence. However, the criminal complaint was dismissed due to lack of probable cause. Betty also presented a holographic will where Nick purportedly bequeathed the property to her and disinherited Florence, although the will was never probated.

The respondents, Victorey and Josephine Garabato, countered these claims by denying the forgery. They argued that the action was prescribed or barred by laches (unreasonable delay). They further contended that Betty had no cause of action since the property was Eduviges’ paraphernal property. Crucially, they presented an Affidavit of Waiver executed by Nick Garbo, stating that he had not contributed to the purchase of the land and waived all rights to it in favor of his wife, Eduviges. The trial court and the Court of Appeals both ruled against Betty, finding that she failed to prove the alleged forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The appellate court also noted that the deed of sale was a notarized document, which carries a presumption of regularity in its execution.

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, emphasizing that it is not a trier of facts and typically defers to the factual findings of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court reiterated the established principle that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. As Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court states, “the burden of proof is the duty of a party to present evidence on the facts in issue necessary to establish his or her claim or defense.”

The Court cited Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church, USA, which outlined the factors involved in examining and comparing handwritings. According to this case, the authenticity of a signature cannot be determined solely on general characteristics or similarities. Other factors like the writer’s position, the surface condition, state of mind, and the writing instrument used also play a role. The Court emphasized that expert opinions on handwriting are not necessarily binding. The judge must conduct an independent examination to determine authenticity.

In this case, the Court noted that Albacea, the handwriting expert, did not adequately explain his methodology or point out specific discrepancies in the signatures. The examination was initiated by Nick and Betty, giving them control over the documents examined. This raised concerns about potential bias. Therefore, the Supreme Court upheld the lower courts’ findings that Betty failed to provide the necessary clear and convincing evidence to prove forgery. Ultimately, because the petitioner failed to meet the evidentiary burden, the petition was denied.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The central issue was whether the petitioner presented sufficient evidence to prove that the signatures on the Deed of Sale were forged, thereby invalidating the transfer of property. The court ultimately ruled that the evidence presented was insufficient.
What is the standard of proof for alleging forgery?	The standard of proof for alleging forgery is clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proven with a high degree of certainty by the party making the allegation.
Who has the burden of proving forgery?	The burden of proving forgery lies on the party who alleges it. They must present evidence that is of greater weight or more convincing than the evidence offered in opposition to it.
Are courts bound by the opinions of handwriting experts?	No, courts are not necessarily bound by the opinions of handwriting experts. The expert’s role is to provide data for the court to form its own opinion. The judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature.
What is the effect of a notarized document?	A notarized document carries a presumption of regularity in its execution. This presumption can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
What factors are considered when examining a signature for forgery?	Factors considered include the spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, and shades. The writer’s position, the surface, state of mind, and the writing instrument used are also considered.
What is the significance of the Affidavit of Waiver in this case?	The Affidavit of Waiver, executed by Nick Garbo, stated that he had not contributed to the purchase of the land and waived all rights to it in favor of his wife, Eduviges. This affidavit weakened the petitioner’s claim that Nick’s signature was forged.
Why was the holographic will not considered in the decision?	The holographic will was not considered because it was never probated. A will must be probated in court to have legal effect and transfer property.

This case illustrates the high standard of proof required to successfully challenge the authenticity of signatures on legal documents in the Philippines. Allegations of forgery must be supported by substantial evidence that clearly and convincingly demonstrates the falsity of the signature, taking into account all relevant factors and circumstances.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Gepulle-Garbo v. Garabato, G.R. No. 200013, January 14, 2015