The Importance of Substantial Evidence in Forgery Claims

Moises G. Coro v. Montano B. Nasayao, G.R. No. 235361, October 16, 2019

Imagine waking up one day to find that the land you’ve owned for decades has been sold without your knowledge, and the sale document bears your forged signature. This nightmare became a reality for Moises G. Coro, who found himself embroiled in a legal battle over a property he claimed was fraudulently sold. The central question in his case was whether he could prove the forgery of the 1963 Deed of Absolute Sale (DOAS) that transferred his property to Montano B. Nasayao. This case underscores the critical role of evidence in property disputes and the high burden of proof required to establish forgery in the eyes of the law.

Moises Coro alleged that he discovered in 2003 that his stepbrother, Montano Nasayao, had acquired his land through a forged deed dated back to 1963. Coro claimed he never sold the property nor appeared before the notary public who supposedly notarized the deed. In contrast, Nasayao’s family asserted that the sale was legitimate, and they had been paying taxes on the property since 1963. The courts had to determine the validity of the DOAS and whether Coro’s claim of forgery held water.

Understanding Forgery and the Burden of Proof

In the Philippines, forgery is a serious allegation that cannot be presumed. According to the Supreme Court, “forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence.” This principle is rooted in the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, which place the burden of proof on the party alleging forgery. The evidence must be of greater weight or more convincing than the opposing evidence to meet the standard of preponderance of evidence.

The concept of forgery in property disputes often involves the examination of signatures on legal documents. Forgery is defined as the act of fraudulently making or altering a document to deceive others. In property cases, this typically involves falsifying signatures on deeds, contracts, or other property-related documents. The Supreme Court has emphasized that “the fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.”

An example of how this legal principle applies in everyday situations is when a homeowner suspects that their property title was fraudulently transferred. To challenge the transfer, they must gather evidence such as handwriting analysis reports, witness testimonies, and other documents bearing their genuine signature to prove that the signature on the transfer document is a forgery.

The Journey of Moises Coro’s Case

Moises Coro’s legal battle began when he filed a complaint for the annulment of the 1963 DOAS and the reconveyance of his property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed his complaint, finding the signatures on the DOAS to be genuine and ruling that Coro failed to prove forgery. The RTC also noted that the action had prescribed due to the long delay in filing the case.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) upheld the RTC’s decision, though it disagreed on the issue of prescription. The CA emphasized that “forgery is never presumed; being the party who alleged forgery, appellant has the burden of proving the same by clear, positive and convincing evidence, which appellant failed to do so here.” The CA further noted that the DOAS, being a notarized document, enjoyed the presumption of regularity.

When Coro escalated the case to the Supreme Court, the justices reiterated that questions of fact, such as the authenticity of signatures, were beyond their jurisdiction under a Rule 45 petition, which is limited to errors of law. The Supreme Court stated, “The question of whether the signatures of petitioner and his wife appearing in the April 1, 1963, DOAS are forgeries is a question of fact which is beyond this Court’s jurisdiction under the present petition.”

The procedural journey of Coro’s case highlights the importance of timely action and the need for substantial evidence in property disputes. Here are the key procedural steps:

• Moises Coro filed a complaint in the RTC for the annulment of the DOAS and reconveyance of his property.
• The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding the DOAS signatures genuine and the action prescribed.
• The CA upheld the RTC’s decision on the merits of the case but disagreed on the issue of prescription.
• The Supreme Court denied the petition for review on certiorari, affirming the CA’s decision but modifying the awards of damages.

Practical Implications and Key Lessons

The ruling in Moises G. Coro v. Montano B. Nasayao has significant implications for property owners and individuals involved in similar disputes. The case underscores that notarized documents carry a presumption of regularity, making it challenging to overturn them without clear and convincing evidence. Property owners must be vigilant in safeguarding their documents and promptly addressing any suspicious transfers.

For those who suspect forgery, the case serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary threshold required to prove such claims. It is crucial to gather substantial evidence, such as expert handwriting analysis, to support allegations of forgery. Additionally, the case highlights the importance of timely action, as delays can lead to the prescription of claims.

Key Lessons:

• Notarized documents are presumed valid and regular, requiring clear and convincing evidence to challenge them.
• The burden of proof in forgery cases lies with the party alleging the forgery.
• Property owners should regularly monitor their property records and act swiftly upon discovering any discrepancies.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the burden of proof in a forgery case?
The burden of proof lies with the party alleging forgery, who must establish their case by clear, positive, and convincing evidence that outweighs the evidence presented by the opposing party.

Can a notarized document be challenged in court?
Yes, a notarized document can be challenged, but the challenger must overcome the presumption of regularity by presenting strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity.

How long do I have to file a case for forgery in a property dispute?
The statute of limitations for filing a case for forgery can vary, but it is generally advisable to act promptly upon discovering the forgery to avoid the risk of prescription.

What types of evidence are useful in proving forgery?
Useful evidence includes expert handwriting analysis, witness testimonies, and documents bearing the genuine signature of the person whose signature is alleged to have been forged.

What should I do if I suspect my property title has been forged?
Immediately consult with a legal professional to gather evidence and file a complaint to challenge the forged document before it becomes too late due to prescription.

ASG Law specializes in property and civil litigation. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.