ALFARO Vs CA

2/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 519
270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alfaro vs. Court of Appeals
*
G.R. No. 162864. March 28, 2007.
SPS. PEBLIA ALFARO and PROSPEROUS ALFARO,

petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, SPS.
OLEGARIO P. BAGANO and CECILIA C. BAGANO,
respondents.
Sales; Evidence; Notarial Law; A notarized Deed of Absolute

Sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due
execution.—On its face, the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized;
as such, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and carries the
evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due
execution. Absent evidence that is clear, convincing, and more
than merely preponderant, the presumption must be upheld.
Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; When a document in

two or more copies is executed at or about the same time, with
identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as
originals; Original does not mean the first paper written, in
contrast to a copy or transcript made later—the original depends
upon the issue to be proved.—When a document in two or more
copies is executed at or about the same time, with identical
contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.
Original does not mean the first paper written, in contrast to a
copy or transcript made later. The original depends upon the
issue to be proved. It is immaterial whether that document was
written before or after another, was copied from another, or was
itself used to copy from, as long as its contents are the subject of
inquiry. Hence, one or some of these copies are still considered as
originals, and they have equal claims to authenticity.
_______________
* SECOND DIVISION.
271
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001700573223e67ab0e9b003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/18
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 271
Same; Same; Same; Same; As a matter of practice, deeds of

conveyance are prepared in several copies for notarization and
record purposes—all the notarized copies are originals, and are
sometimes loosely referred to as “original copies” or duplicate
originals.”—As a matter of practice, deeds of conveyance are
prepared in several copies for notarization and record purposes.
After notarization, the notary public retains copies pursuant to
the Rules on Notarial Practice, one for his record and the other for
transmittal to the court, through Clerk of Court concerned, where
he secured his notarial commission. When he gives all the other
copies to the parties, the latter agree between themselves how
many copies should be kept by each. The parties also agree which
copies shall be presented to the Register of Deeds for registration,
the city or municipal assessor in connection with the payment of
transfer tax and other fees, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue
in connection with the payment of the capital gains tax. All the
notarized copies are originals. They are sometimes loosely
referred to as “original copies” or “duplicate originals.”
Same; Same; Forgery; Handwriting Experts; Generally, it has

been held that handwriting experts, while probably useful, are not
indispensable in examining or comparing handwriting; One who
alleges forgery has the burden to establish 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;
Forgery is not presumed—it must be proven by clear, positive and
convincing evidence.—It has been held that handwriting experts,
while probably useful, are not indispensable in examining or
comparing handwriting. Yet without Varona’s testimony, the
Court is hard-pressed to find any other basis on the record to
establish the forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to
establish 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. Aside from the opinion of the
handwriting expert which this Court finds inconsequential, the
bare assertions on the part of respondent Cecilia Bagano that the
signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale is not that of
her husband is not enough. No additional witnesses were
presented. We reassert that forgery is not presumed; it must be
proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Those who
make the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving it.
Respondents failed to substantiate with sufficient evidence their
claim that their signatures appearing on the deed of sale were
forged.
272
Same; Same; Same; Mere variance of the signatures cannot be

considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.—And it
must be said that our own comparison of the signatures on the
Deed of Absolute Sale to the specimen signatures submitted by
the parties reveals no substantial variance to warrant the
conclusion that there was forgery. Mere variance of the signatures
cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were
forged.
PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Caesar A.M. Tabotabo for petitioners.
Conchito E. Germino for private respondents.
TINGA, J.:
There lies an inherent oxymoron to the term “duplicate

originals” as applied to documents. Yet, even as two
“duplicate originals” of the same document are not exactly
identical, they may be considered as identical for all legal
intents and purposes. Indeed, each “duplicate original” may
be considered as the best evidence of the transaction
embodied therein.
Assailed
1
in this Petition for Review on Certiorari is the
Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 17 November 2003
in CA-G.R. CV No. 72335, as well as the Resolution dated 3
March 2004, denying the motion for reconsideration.
First, the facts on record.
On 15 April 1996, Spouses Olegario and Cecilia Bagano
(respondents) filed a complaint against Spouses Peblia and
Prosperous Alfaro (petitioners) for Declaration of Nullity of
Sale with Damages and Preliminary Injunction before the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cebu City. In the complaint,
_______________
1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and

concurred in by Associate Justices Eubolo G. Verzola and Edgardo F.
Sundiam. Rollo, pp. 46-63.
273
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 273

respondents as plaintiffs alleged the following: that they

were the previous registered owners of a parcel of land
known as Lot No. 1710, located at San Roque, Talisay,
Cebu and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
78445; that on 22 June 1994, respondents executed a Real
Estate Mortgage over the lot in favor of petitioners to
secure payment of an obligation in the amount of
P180,000.00; that upon payment of the mortgage 2
debt, a
Cancellation and Discharge of Mortgage dated 20 June
1995 was executed; that when respondents demanded the
return of their title, petitioners refused, prompting the
former to check with the Register of Deeds; that upon
verification, respondents learned that their title had3
already been cancelled and in lieu thereof TCT No. 92783
was issued in the name of petitioners by virtue of a
spurious Deed of Absolute Sale dated 14 June 1995 (Deed
of Absolute Sale) purportedly executed by respondents.
Thus, respondents sought the nullification of the deed of
absolute sale on the ground that their signatures thereon
were forged.
In their answer, petitioners as defendants denied the
alleged forgery. They insisted that respondents sold Lot No.
1710 to them in consideration of the amount of P534,000.00
sometime in June 1995.
Respondents’ evidence tend to establish that they sent a
letter-request to Romeo Varona (Varona), a handwriting
expert from the Cebu City PNP Crime Laboratory, for the
examination of the questioned signatures in the Deed of
Absolute Sale. The request was accompanied by a set of
documents consisting of the Deed 4
of Conditional Sale dated
23 October 1989 (Exh. “H”) together with documents
containing the specimen signatures of respondents,
namely: five (5) receipts with 5
corresponding dates (Exhs.
“I,” “I-1,” “I-2,” “I-3,” “I-4”), Community Tax Certificate
dated 13 January 1995 (Exh.
_______________
2 Id., at p. 71.
3 Id., at p. 73.
4 Folder of Exhibits, pp. 9-10.
5 Id., at pp. 11-15.
274

6 7
“J”), Individual Taxpayer’s ID 8
(Exh. “K”), Partido ng
Masang Pilipino9 ID (Exh. “L”), and a copy of the Deed of
Sale (Exh. “B”). After examining Exh. “B” and comparing
the signatures thereon purporting to be those of
respondents with the specimen signatures on the
documents10provided by respondents, Varona issued Report
No. 006-96 dated 11 January 1996 containing his findings.
On 25 November 1998, respondents presented Varona as
an expert witness on their behalf. Varona affirmed the
conclusion embodied in his Report that the questioned
signatures appearing on Exhibit “B” were forged.
On the same trial date, petitioners manifested their
intention to have Varona examine another set of
documents which according to them contain the genuine
signatures of respondents. Hence, on 12 March 1999,
petitioners sent a letter to Varona, requesting him to
examine the signatures on the other set of documents,
namely:
11
Real Estate Mortgage dated 22 June 1994 (Ex.
“2”), Acknowledgement Receipt 12
for the sum of P216,000.00
dated 14 June 1995 (Ex. 13
“3”), six (6) deeds of conditional
sale (Exhs. “4” to “9”), China Bank Check No. A-190308 14
dated 5 August 1994 for P52,000.00 (Exh. “10”), and
Community Tax Certificate 15(CTC) No. 19886842 dated 8
February 1995 (Exh. “11”). At the continuation of the
cross-examination, Varona stated that the signatures on
the documents provided him, which purport to be those of
respondents, as well as the signatures on another
_______________
6 Id., at p. 16.
7 Id., at p. 17.
8 Id., at p. 18.
9 Id., at p. 2.
10 Exh. “E,” id., at p. 6.
11 Supra note 4.
12 Records, p. 209.
13 Id., at pp. 210-215.
14 Id., at p. 216.
15 Id., at p. 217.
275
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 275
copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. “13”), which

similarly purport to 16be those of respondents, were affixed
by the same persons.
According to petitioners’ evidence, respondents had
initially mortgaged Lot No. 1710 in their favor for
P180,000.00 on 22 17
June 1994, as evidenced by a Real
Estate Mortgage. Two months later, respondents sold a
different set of lots, i.e., Lot Nos. 809-C, 809-D, 809-J, 809-
K, 809-T and 809-U, by virtue of six (6) deeds of conditional
sale in favor of petitioners who paid the sum of P138,000.00
as downpayment. Thereafter, petitioners discovered that
the lots subject of the conditional sale were also sold on
installment basis to other parties. To placate petitioners,
respondents sold to them the lot in question, Lot No. 1710,
in consideration of P534,000.00, as evidenced by the Deed
of Absolute Sale. Petitioners paid an additional
P216,000.00 after being credited the amounts of
P180,000.00 representing the debt secured by the Real
Estate Mortgage and P138,000.00 representing the
aggregate
18
down-payments for the six (6) conditional deeds
of sale. 19
On 23 April 2001, the RTC rendered a Decision
dismissing the complaint and ordering respondents to pay
P50,000.00 as moral damages, P20,000.00 as attorney’s
fees and P10,000.00 as litigation expenses, plus costs of
suit.
On appeal, the 20
Court of Appeals promulgated the
assailed Decision, reversing and setting aside the Decision
of the RTC. It declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and
void ab initio, reinstated TCT No. 78445 in the name of
respondents, and ordered petitioners to pay the amount of
P20,000.00 as moral damages and attorney’s fee to
respondents.
_______________
16 TSN, 19 May 1999, p. 8.

17 Records, p. 208.
18 TSN, 24 November 1999, pp. 4-10.
19 Presided by Judge Aproniano B. Taypin; Records, pp. 262-268.
20 Supra note 1.
276

In the present petition, petitioners maintain that the Court

of Appeals committed an error in reversing the judgment of
the trial court. Issues were raised, concerning the following
points, to wit: first, the selective reversal by the appellate
court of the RTC’s factual findings; second, the selective
discussion of the elements of a contract of sale as basis for
the invalidation of the Deed of Absolute Sale; third, the
ruling that failure to offer in evidence the second
questioned report proved fatal to petitioners’ cause; fourth,
the blanket denial of petitioners’ motion for
reconsideration; and fifth, the citing of respondent Olegario
Bagano’s testimony in the Decision despite its having been
stricken off
21
the records for his failure to be cross-
examined.
The first three (3) points raised obviously relate to the
determinative issue—whether or not the questioned
signatures of respondents on the Deed of Absolute Sale
were forged, thereby rendering the document spurious.
Such determination is evidently factual in nature, and the
well-entrenched rule is that in the exercise of this Court’s
power of review, the findings of facts of the Court of 22
Appeals are conclusive and binding on 23
this Court.
However, there are recognized exceptions, among which is
when the factual findings of the trial
_______________
21 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

22 Apex Mining Co. Inc. v. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp., G.R.
Nos. 152613 & 152628, 23 June 2006, 492 SCRA 355.
23 (1) when the findings are grounded entirely on speculation, surmises
or conjectures; (2) when the inference made is manifestly mistaken,
absurd or impossible; (3) when there is grave abuse of discretion; (4) when
the judgment is based on misapprehension of facts; (5) when the findings
of facts are conflicting; (6) when in making its findings the Court of
Appeals went beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to
the admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are
conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are based;
(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the petitioner’s
main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent; (10) when the
findings of fact are
277
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 277

24
24
court and the appellate court are conflicting. This case
falls under the exception. The disagreement between the
trial court and the Court of Appeals in the factual
conclusion, especially with regard to the alleged forgery of
respondents’ signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale, has
constrained us to minutely examine the evidence submitted
by the parties.
On its face, the Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized; as
such, it enjoys the presumption of regularity and carries
the evidentiary25 weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution. Absent evidence that is clear, convincing,
and more than26 merely preponderant, the presumption
must be upheld.
In their bid to establish “clear, convincing and more
than merely preponderant evidence,” respondents
presented an expert witness, Varona, who attested that the
Deed of Absolute Sale was indeed forged. Was the witness
successful in that regard?
Respondents rely on Varona’s testimony on direct
examination, as well as his findings in the examination of
the copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale as Exh. “B.” On that
basis, they claim forgery. In their effort to refute
respondents’ allegation, petitioners hinge on the testimony
on cross-examination of the same expert and his findings in
the examination of an-
_______________
premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the

evidence on record; and (11) when the Court of Appeals manifestly
overlooked certain relevant facts not disputed by the parties, which, if
properly considered, would justify a different conclusion. Id., at p. 376.
24 Philippine National Bank v. Heirs of Militar, G.R. No. 164801, 30
June 2006, 494 SCRA 308.
25 De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 57092, 21 January 1993,
217 SCRA 307; Penson v. Maranan, G.R. No. 148630, 20 June 2006, 491
SCRA 396.
26 Cirelos v. Hernandez, G.R. No. 146523, 15 June 2006, 490 SCRA 625;
Bravo-Guerrero v. Bravo, G.R. No. 152658, 29 July 2005, 465 SCRA 244.
278

other original of the Deed of Absolute Sale, marked as Exh.

“13.” The two varying findings led the trial court to
conclude that Varona had retracted his earlier finding of

forgery, thus:
“When Mr. Romeo Varona was presented by the defendants to

identify and give his expert opinion about the signatures
appearing in the documents marked as annexes “1” to “13,” he
categorically told the Honorable Court that the signatures of
Olegario Bagano and Cecilia Bagano appearing in the said
documents are genuine, thus belying the claim of the plaintiff
that said signatures are forged.
It should be noted[,] however, that in an earlier testimony, Mr.
Romeo Varona testified that the deed of sale in question is a
forgery, but he later on retracted his earlier testimony after he
conducted an27 examination of the documents sent to him by the
defendants.”
The trial court further sustained the validity of the Deed of

Absolute Sale by citing the rule that instruments are
evidence, even against third persons, of the fact which28 gave
rise to their execution and of the date of the latter. The
trial court also emphasized the character of the questioned
deed as a notarial document, which cannot be disproved by
mere denial of the alleged 29
signatory, and bears the
presumption of regularity. Moreover, the RTC noted that
respondents filed the case in bad faith to appease their
buyers and cover up their wrongdoings in subdividing 30
the
lot and selling the resulting lots to different parties.
The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s conclusion
and proceeded from a different premise, i.e., that in the
second examination which involves the standard and
specimen signatures submitted by petitioners, Varona did
not actually receive and examine the original of the Deed of
Sale, Exh. “13.” It explained, thus:
_______________
27 Records, p. 266.
28 RULES OF COURT, Rule 132, Sec. 24.
29 Records, p. 267.
30 Id., at p. 268.
279
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 279

“Records show that the signatures of Spouses Bagano appearing

in the Deed of Sale dated June 14, 1995 were forged. Witness
Romeo O. Varona, a document examiner of the PNP Crime

Laboratory came out with his Questioned Document Report No.
006-96 dated January 11, 1995 which states that after a careful
examination of the questioned document submitted by Spouses
Bagano, he found out that the signatures of Spouses Bagano
appearing in the questioned Deed of Sale dated June 14, 1995
were forged. x x x
xxxx
Likewise, he confirmed on the witness stand on November 25,
1998 that indeed the signatures of Spouses Bagano appearing in
the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale are forgeries. However, on
cross-examination conducted on February 10, 1999, counsel for
Spouses Alfaro manifested that they would submit for
examination the subject documents and that she would cross-
examine Mr. Varona after the latter’s examination of the
submitted documents. On February 28, 1999[,] counsel for the
Spouses Alfaro, Atty. Montesclaros, submitted other documents
for examination, except the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 14,
1995. On May 19, 1999, during Mr. Varona’s cross-examination,
he testified that his findings and conclusions, as stated in the
Questioned Document Report No. 039-39 dated March 12, 1999,
were that the signatures appearing thereon were written by one
and same person. On May 28, 1999, Atty. Montesclaros again
requested Mr. Varona to examine the Deed of Absolute Sale dated
June 14, 1995. On June 16, 1999, Mr. Varona categorically
testified that he had examined the said deed of sale and when
asked if he prepared a report on the said examination he
answered in the affirmative. But when again asked where that
report was, Mr. Varona referred to Questioned Document Report
No. 039-39 dated March 12, 1999, which was the same report that
he prepared previously on the basis of the first request of Atty.
Montesclaros dated February 28, 1999, where it did not include
for examination the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale dated June
14, 1995.
Such a testimony cannot be taken as a retraction of his
previous testimony. What the lower court failed to realize was
that Romeo Varona did not actually receive and examine the
original copy of the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale, as testified
to by him. x x x
xxxx
Such a statement categorically means that Romeo Varona did
not actually receive any copy of the questioned deed of absolute
sale
280

during his first examination upon the request of Atty.

Montesclaros. This Court observed that during Mr. Varona’s
cross-examination on June 16, 1999, defendants-appellees’
counsel, Atty. Juanita Montesclaros, tried to make it appear that
Mr. Varona examined the Deed of Absolute Sale, when in truth
and in fact, he did not. x x x
xxxx
It is very clear that Atty. Montesclaros tried to make it appear
that the questioned document which was the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated June 14, 1995 was indeed examined. However, this
was not the case because Mr. Varona’s alleged report on the
second request for examination still refers to the previous report,
Questioned Document Report No. 039-39 dated March 12, 1999,
which was the same report that he prepared previously on the
basis of the first request of Atty. Montesclaros dated February 28,
1999, wherein it did not include for examination the questioned
Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 14, 1995, and which he had
already identified on May 19, 1999. This only means that the
Deed of Absolute Sale was not received and examined by Mr.
Varona and yet his testimony on cross, dated June 16, 1999[,] still
referred to the same report. There was[,] therefore no report made
on the second request for examination dated May 28, 1999 on the
Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 14, 1995 as Mr. Varona merely
referred to his previous report as his alleged second report on the
Deed of Absolute Sale. Moreover, the date of the second Written
Request for examination is May 28, 1999 and the date of the
Questioned Document Report No. 039-39 is March 12, 1999, and
Mr. Varona’s testimony of June 16, 1999 referred to the said
report of March 12, 1999 which report was 31
made on the basis of
the first written request for examination.”
The disparate conclusions reached by the courts below are

such because they originated from different but similarly
erroneous basic premises.
When a document in two or more copies is executed at or
about the same time, with identical 32contents, all such
copies are equally regarded as originals. Original does not
mean the first paper written, in contrast to a copy or
transcript
_______________
31 Rollo, pp. 57-61.

32 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4(b).
281
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 281

made later.
33
The original depends upon the issue to be
proved. It is immaterial whether that document was
written before or after another,
34
was copied from another, or
was itself used to copy
35
from, as long as its contents are the
subject of inquiry. Hence, one or some of these copies are
still considered as originals, and they have equal claims to
authenticity.
As a matter of practice, deeds of conveyance are
prepared in several copies for notarization and record
purposes. After notarization, the notary public retains
copies pursuant to the Rules on Notarial Practice, one for
his record and the other for transmittal to the court,
through Clerk of Court 36
concerned, where he secured his
notarial commission. When he gives all the other copies to
the parties, the latter agree between themselves how many
copies should be kept by each. The parties also agree which
copies shall be presented to the Register of Deeds for
registration, the city or municipal assessor in connection
with the payment of transfer tax and other fees, and the
Bureau of Internal Revenue in connection with the
payment of the capital gains tax. All the notarized
copies are originals. They are sometimes loosely referred
to as “original copies” or “duplicate originals.”
In the case at bar, presented in evidence were two copies
of one and the same Deed of Absolute Sale 37
dated 14 June
1995. These 38
are respondents’ Exh. “B” and petitioners’
Exh. “13”39 which was also marked by respondents as their
Exh. “O.” Exh. “B” appears to be a certified true copy of
the original of the Deed of Absolute Sale presented to and
kept as part of the
_______________
33 HERRERA,OSCAR M., REMEDIAL LAW (1999 ed.), p. 179, citing 5

MORAN 84 (1980 ed.), citing Fiscal of Pampanga v. Reyes and Guevara,
55 Phil. 905, 908.
34 WIGMORE ON EVIDENCE, Vol. IV (3rd ed.), p. 442.
35 RULES OF COURT, Rule 130, Sec. 4(a).
36 2004 RULES ON NOTARIAL PRACTICE, Rule VI, Sec. 2.
37 Records, p. 153.
38 TSN, 16 June 1999, p. 2.
39 Id., at p. 8.
282

40
records of the Register of Deeds. Exhibit “13” is a copy of
the original retained by petitioners.
Respondents had engaged Varona to determine the
genuineness of the signatures purporting to be theirs on
Exh. “B” by comparing
41
them with the specimen signatures
on the documents which they also provided Varona. On
the witness
42
stand, Varona affirmed his finding in his
Report that the questioned signatures on Exh. “B” were
not affixed by the same persons who affixed the specimen
signatures
43
and thus the questioned signatures were
forged.
However, after Varona testified on direct examination,
petitioners manifested that they would engage him to
examine a different set of44 documents which contain the
signatures of respondents. On cross-examination, Varona
stated that he examined the signatures on Exh. “13” and
the specimen signatures on the other documents furnished
him and that after making the examination he arrived at
the conclusion that the signatures on the documents, 45
including Exh. “13,” were affixed by the same persons.
On the basis of the two findings of Varona, the first
involving Exh. “B” and the second relating to Exh. “13,” the
trial court concluded that the questioned deed is genuine as
the signatures thereon which purport to be those of
respondents are really theirs. It ratiocinated that Varona
had retracted his first opinion when he came out with his
second opinion.
The trial court erred in using the supposed retraction as
basis for its ruling. It cannot properly speak of retraction of
_______________
40 The copy of the original Deed of Absolute Sale marked as Exh. “B”
was procured by respondents from the Register of Deeds of Cebu City,
which copy bears a certification by Deputy Register of Deeds III, Ma.
Vilma B. Sato.
41 TSN, 25 November 1998, p. 9.
42 Folder of Exhibits, p. 6.
43 Id., at p. 4.
44 Id., at p. 12.
45 TSN, 19 May 1999, p. 5.
283
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 283

one finding by the other because the examinations

conducted by Varona covered two different standard
signatures and two different sets of specimen signatures. It
would have been a retraction or repudiation of the first
conclusion if the standard signatures analyzed and
compared with the specimen signatures were one and the
same in the two examinations, even if the specimen
signatures were contained in two different sets of
documents which is not even the case here.
Yet clearly, Varona came out with inconsistent findings.
On one hand, he concluded that Exh. “B” is spurious
because the questioned signatures thereon were forged. On
the other, he issued a different determination as regards
Exh. “13,” finding that the signatures thereon which
purport to be those of respondents and the counterpart
specimen signatures were affixed by the same persons.
Since Exhs. “B” and “13” are copies of two originals of one
and the same deed, his conclusions with respect to the two
exhibits should be common, i.e., either the questioned
signatures thereon were both affixed by the same persons
or they were affixed by different persons.
The disharmonious findings render Varona’s testimony
unconvincing. Thus, the presumption of validity of the
Deed of Absolute Sale as a notarized document is left
unscathed.
Respondents seek to downplay the determinations made
by Varona concerning Exh. “13” by impugning the
authenticity of the specimen signatures, specifically the
signature of Olegario Bagano on the CTC, Exh. “11.” They
claim in particular that the issuance date of the CTC was
altered. Respondents, however, did not present any
tangible proof to support their allegation. On the other
hand, petitioners procured a certification from Cebu City
Treasurer Eustaquio B. Cesa to the46 effect that the subject
CTC belonged to Olegario Bagano. As regards the other
documents which contain the specimen signatures, namely:
the Real Estate Mortgage (Exh. “2”), the Acknowledgment
Receipt (Exh. “3”), the six deeds of conditional sale
_______________
46 Records, p. 217.
284

(Exhs. “4” to “9”) and the China Bank check (Exh. “10”),
respondent failed to adduce countervailing evidence of
spuriousness. It is noteworthy that the parties to the deeds
of sale were also petitioners and respondents themselves.
Also, the amount covered by the Acknowledgment Receipt
was the additional cash payment of petitioners to
respondents.
On the part of the Court of Appeals, it chose to disregard
Varona’s conclusions on Exh. “13” on the premise that the
written report which contained the conclusions was not
presented in evidence.
However, as borne out by the record, Varona repeated
his findings in open court in the course of his testimony on
cross-examination and even was asked 47on re-direct
examination by respondents’ counsel thereon.
Generally, it has been held that handwriting experts,
while probably useful, are not48indispensable in examining
or comparing handwriting. Yet without Varona’s
testimony, the Court is hard-pressed to find any other basis
on the record to establish the forgery. One who alleges
forgery has the burden to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater
weight or more49 convincing than that which is offered in
opposition to it. Aside from the opinion of the handwriting
expert which this Court finds inconsequential, the bare
assertions on the part of respondent Cecilia Bagano that
the signature appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale is not
that of her husband is not enough. No additional witnesses
were presented.
We reassert that forgery is not presumed; it must be
proven by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Those
who
_______________
47 People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506; 395 SCRA 407 (2003).

48 China Banking Corp. v. Lagon, G.R. No. 160843, 11 July 2006, 494
SCRA 560.
49 Delfin v. Billones, G.R. No. 146550, 17 March 2006, 485 SCRA 38.
285
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 285

make
50
the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving
it. Respondents failed to substantiate with sufficient
evidence their claim that their signatures appearing on the

deed of sale were forged.
We are moreover influenced in our ultimate finding by
the fact that there is also sufficient evidence on record to
bolster the presumption that the notarized Deed of
Absolute Sale was genuine. Ultimately worthy of
consideration is petitioner Plebia Alfaro’s positive
testimony that she actually saw respondent Olegario 51
Bagano affix his signature on the questioned document.
However self-serving that allegation may seem, it
corroborates the other evidence that respondents did affix
their signatures on the deed. Equally relevant in this
supposition is the comparison of the standard signatures on
Exh. “13” with the signatures of respondents found in the
Real Estate Mortgage, Exh. “2,” a document which was
duly notarized and thus bears prima facie proof as to its
due execution and the validity of the contents therein.
Even respondent Cecilia Bagano admitted
52
the genuineness
of said document in her testimony. No specific objection
was raised by respondents as to the validity of the Deed of
Real Estate Mortgage, their blanket objection thereto being
confined to an overarching allegation against its
materiality and relevancy, which is not sufficient to rebut
the presumption of authenticity of the notarized deed.
And it must be said that our own comparison of the
signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale to the specimen
signatures submitted by the parties reveals no substantial
variance to warrant the conclusion that there was forgery.
Mere variance
_______________
50 Herbon v. Palad, G.R. No. 149542, 20 July 2006, 495 SCRA 544; Pan
Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125283, 10
February 2006, 482 SCRA 164; R.F. Navarro & Co., Inc. v. Hon. Vailoces,
413 Phil. 432; 361 SCRA 139 (2001).
51 TSN, 24 November 1999, p. 7.
52 TSN, 27 July 1998, p. 3.
286

of the signatures cannot be 53

considered as conclusive proof
that the same were forged.
What could respondents have done in order to fortify
their claim of forgery following the manifest indecisiveness
of the expert witness they had relied on? Considering that

the burden was upon respondents to establish the alleged
forgery, they should have presented evidence on rebuttal,
which they did not do, or even another expert witness to
attest to their claim of forgery, which again they failed to
do. Disingenuous as petitioners’ tactic may have seemed, in
using their oppo-nent’s expert witness to advocate the
contrary cause, respondents were not without remedy to
mitigate the damage wrought by said witness. That they
failed to introduce rebuttal evidence finally led to the
collapse of their cause of action.
With the foregoing disquisition, discussion of the other
issues raised by petitioners is unnecessary.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The Decision
of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE. The Decision of the
Regional Trial Court of Cebu, Branch 12, is REINSTATED.
SO ORDERED.
Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
Petition granted, judgment set aside.
Notes.—One who purchases real property which is in

actual possession of others should, at least, make some
inquiry concerning the rights of those in possession.
(Consolidated Rural Bank [Cagayan Valley], Inc. vs. Court
of Appeals, 448 SCRA 347 [2005])
_______________
53 JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan

Guarantee Corporation, G.R. No. 151060, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 555.
287
VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 287

Aznar vs. Citibank, N.A. (Philippines)
Whoever alleges forgery must prove it by clear and

convincing evidence. (Barcenas vs. Tomas, 454 SCRA 593
[2005])
——o0o——
© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

ALFARO Vs CA

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ALFARO Vs CA

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2/2/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 519

270 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SPS. PEBLIA ALFARO and PROSPEROUS ALFARO,

Sales; Evidence; Notarial Law; A notarized Deed of Absolute

Same; Same; Same; Words and Phrases; When a document in

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 271

Alfaro vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Same; As a matter of practice, deeds of

Same; Same; Forgery; Handwriting Experts; Generally, it has

272 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alfaro vs. Court of Appeals

Same; Same; Same; Mere variance of the signatures cannot be

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

There lies an inherent oxymoron to the term “duplicate

1 Penned by Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando and

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 273

respondents as plaintiffs alleged the following: that they

274 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 275

Alfaro vs. Court of Appeals

copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale (Exh. “13”), which

16 TSN, 19 May 1999, p. 8.

276 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In the present petition, petitioners maintain that the Court

21 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 277

premised on the supposed absence of evidence and contradicted by the

278 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

other original of the Deed of Absolute Sale, marked as Exh.

conclude that Varona had retracted his earlier finding of

“When Mr. Romeo Varona was presented by the defendants to

The trial court further sustained the validity of the Deed of

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 279

“Records show that the signatures of Spouses Bagano appearing

Romeo O. Varona, a document examiner of the PNP Crime

280 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

during his first examination upon the request of Atty.

The disparate conclusions reached by the courts below are

31 Rollo, pp. 57-61.

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 281

Alfaro vs. Court of Appeals

33 HERRERA,OSCAR M., REMEDIAL LAW (1999 ed.), p. 179, citing 5

282 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Alfaro vs. Court of Appeals

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 283

one finding by the other because the examinations

284 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

47 People v. Libnao, 443 Phil. 506; 395 SCRA 407 (2003).

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 285

evidence their claim that their signatures appearing on the

286 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

of the signatures cannot be 53

of the expert witness they had relied on? Considering that

Quisumbing (Chairperson), Carpio, Carpio-Morales

Petition granted, judgment set aside.

Notes.—One who purchases real property which is in

53 JN Development Corporation v. Philippine Export and Foreign Loan

VOL. 519, MARCH 28, 2007 287

Whoever alleges forgery must prove it by clear and

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like