3 Tamani Vs Salvador
3 Tamani Vs Salvador
3 TAMANI VS SALVADOR
G.R. NO. 171497. APRIL 4 2011
FACTS:
Respondent Sps Salvador filed a complaint for quieting of title against Petitioners Tamani, et. Al. over a
parcel of land in Solana, Nueva Vizcaya. Petitioners are children and legal heirs of Sps Demetrio and
Josefa Tamani (Sps. Tamani)
o Sps. Salvador and Sps Tamani are co-owners of undivided parcel of land (776 sq. m.) under TCT
no 8582. It is stated in this title that Sps Salvador own 345sq.m. of the property and sps Tamani
own the remaining 431 sq. m. (which is the subject property of this case, “disputed property”)
o The Disputed Property was allegedly sold by Sps Tamani to a certain Cruz as evidenced by a Deed
of Ab. Sale.
o Years later, Cruz sold the Disputed Property to Sps. Salvador through a Deed of Ab. Sale. As a
result, Sps. Salavador acquired ownership over the whole parcel of land and TCT no 8582 was
cancelled
Petitioners Tamani, et al, filed an answer, arguing therein that they are the lawful owners and were in actual
possession of the Disputed Property having inherited the same from Sps. Tamani. Petitioners contend that
the signature of their parents in the Deed of Ab. Sale were forged. (bet. Cruz and sps tamani)
The signature of Demetrio Tamani (one of the sps) in the deed and his standard signatures were submitted
for examination and comparison.
Albacea, document examiner of NBI, stated in his NBI Report that the questioned (yung nasa deed) and the
standard signatures of Demetrio are written by one and the same person.
Unsatisfied, petitioners sought for another examination, this time with the PNP Crime Lab Service. Sorra,
the examiner, in the report stated therein that the questioned signature and the standard signature are
written by two different persons
RTC: In favor of Petitioners Tamani. Deed of Ab. Sale (Aug 17, 1959, yung una with Cruz) null and void.
The RTC gave more weight to the PNP report and testimony of Sorra because of her educational,
professional and work background.
RULING: yes.
This Court is inclined to believe that the signature of Demetrio Tamani appearing on the August 17, 1959 Deed of
Ab. Sale was forged as can be gleaned from the testimony of Sorra.
Sorra testified that the questioned signature was executed in a slow and drawn manner, while the standard signatures
were executed in a fast manner. Moreover, the line quality of the questioned signature, particularly the letters “o,”
“m” and “n” exhibited hesitation and patchings, while the standard signatures exhibited equal distribution of ink line
and had good line quality.28 In addition, the lateral spacing of the questioned signature was crumpled, while the
lateral spacing of the standard signature is normal.
Sorra clarified that the differences were “different” based on the hesitation in writing in the questioned signature.
Sorra was steadfast that the similarities between the questioned signature and the standard signatures is attributable
to the fact that the case involved a “simulated forgery” or a copied forgery, such that there will be similarities, but
the similarities will be superficial.
Other than the testimony of Sorra, the following circumstances would show that the alleged Deed of Sale wa
spurious: First, Cruz never took action to possess the property from 1959 to 1980; Second, even after the supposed
sale, Tamani was continuously declaring the land in his name for taxation purposes and paid the taxes due thereon;
any reasonable person who had sold his property would not undertake the unnecessary burden of continuing to pay
real property taxes on the same; Last, the land was allegedly sold to Cruz for P2,500.00 in 1959 and yet twenty-one
years (21) after, Cruz sold the land to respondents for the same amount of P2,500.00
One who alleges forgery has the burden of establishing his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which
is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. 38 Based on the preceding
discussion, this Court finds that petitioners have satisfactorily discharged such burden.
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.” Preponderance of evidence is a phrase which, in the last analysis, means probability of the truth.
It is evidence which is more convincing to the court as worthier of belief than that which is offered in opposition
thereto.