SPOUSES ASUNCION MALIG-CORONEL AND REYNALDO CORONEL, PETITIONERS, v.

CORAZON SOLIS-QUESADA, RESPONDENT

Topic: Demurrer to Evidence

Facts:

The Spouses Coronel filed a complaint for annulment of deeds, recovery of possession,
reconveyance with preliminary injunction and damages against respondent Corazon Solis-
Quesada (Quesada). Sometime in 2005, they discovered, and subsequently verified with the
Register of Deeds of Tarlac that a Deed of Donation, which showed that they donated the
property in favor of Delos Reyes, was filed. The Spouses Coronel denied executing the Deed of
Donation and alleged that the same was falsified. Deed of Absolute Sale was also forged since
Rodrigo could not have participated in the transaction as he was in Hawaii, USA during that
time. The Spouses Coronel executed a Deed of Donation in favor of Delos Reyes in
consideration of her services, care, and help to Asuncion and her mother.

Thereafter, Delos Reyes obtained a loan from a bank and secured the same through mortgage
of the property in favor of the bank. The bank foreclosed the property when Delos Reyes failed
to pay the loan. Through Quesada's financial assistance, Delos Reyes redeemed the subject
property. Delos Reyes executed the Deed of Absolute Sale in her favor. To bolster her claim,
Quesada presented Reynaldo's letter to the Register of Deeds of Tarlac requesting to annotate
the Right-of-Way granted to them by Delos Reyes, and Delos Reyes' Affidavit granting
perpetual road of right-of-way to the Spouses Coronel.

After the Spouses Coronel formally offered their evidence, Quesada filed a Motion to Dismiss on
a Demurrer to Evidence contending that they failed to prove their cause of action.

RTC granted the demurrer to evidence. The instant case is hereby Dismissed.

According to the RTC, the complaint is dismissible on grounds of prescription and insufficiency
of evidence to sustain the case. The complaint was filed more than 10 years has lapsed from
the time the property was donated to Delos Reyes in 1995. Other than Asuncion's self-serving
testimony, no evidence was presented to corroborate the averment that they were indeed in
possession of the subject property.

CA denied the Spouses Coronel's appeal for failure to establish the requisites to warrant
reconveyance of the land. Spouses Coronel presented mere denial, and have failed to
demonstrate that their signatures are forged. They offered Rodrigo's testimony and various
documents showing his customary signature. However, none of the said documents were
issued during the same period when the questioned deed of sale was executed. As such, it was
not established with certainty that the signature in the questioned deed was not Rodrigo's.

There was no evidence "that Quesada was not an innocent purchaser for value. Their cause
of action has already prescribed, considering that the action was filed more than 10 years from
the issuance of the decree of registration, and there was no proof that they were in actual and
continuous possession of the subject property. The fallo of the Decision provides that
the APPEAL is DENIED RTC decision is AFFIRMED.
CA denied the Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Spouses Coronel.

The Court finds the instant petition devoid of merit.

Sps Coronel: allegation - they have sufficiently established all the elements to warrant the
reconveyance of the subject property. They claim absolute ownership over the subject property
as evidenced title registered under their names. They insist that their denial, coupled with the
substantial difference between the alleged forged signatures and their genuine signatures in
their pleadings, and the apparent discrepancy between Rodrigo's supposed signature in the
deed of sale and his signature samples, are sufficient to establish the forgery. They remained as
the true owners since no title was conveyed to Delos Reyes.

At the outset, it bears to emphasize that the RTC has granted the demurrer to evidence
filed by Quesada. “A demurrer to evidence is defined as 'an objection or exception by one of the
parties in an action at law, to the effect that the evidence which his adversary produced is
insufficient in point of law (whether true or not) to make out his case or sustain the issue.' The
demurrer challenges the sufficiency of the plaintiffs evidence to sustain a verdict. In passing
upon the sufficiency of the evidence raised in a demurrer, the court is merely required to
ascertain whether there is competent or sufficient proof to sustain the indictment or to support a
verdict of guilt."

ISSUE:

Whether the spouses were able to produce sufficient evidence before the trial court to make out
their case or to sustain a verdict. NO

HELD:

In an action for reconveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible. What

In imputing alleged forgery in the signatures appearing in the Deed of Donation and Deed of
Absolute Sale, the Sps Coronel should have conducted an examination of the signatures before
the trial court. Clearly, the testimonial and pieces of documentary evidence adduced by them
does not suffice the requirement needed to show the genuineness of handwriting as set forth by
Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court. A comparison of both the differences and similarities
in the questioned signatures should have been made to satisfy the demands of evidence. The
Court cannot, therefore, accept the claim of forgery where no comparison of the spouses'
signatures was made before the trial, no witness except for Asuncion herself was presented to
testify on the same, and no other evidence to validate the same.

The Spouses Coronel insist that a comparison of the signatures in the questioned documents
and their genuine signatures on the pleadings shows that there is a substantial variance in the
said signatures. Likewise, a comparison of Rodrigo's specimens of genuine signature presented
in the trial court as against the deed of absolute sale, strongly supports that his signature was
forged.
The closeness or proximity of the time in which the standards used had been written to
that of the inspected signature or document is very important to bring about an accurate
analysis and conclusion. The selection of the proper standards of comparison is of
paramount importance specially if we consider the age and state of health of the author
of the questioned signatures. 

As such, the Court disagrees with the allegation of the spouses that the trial court should have
examined their signatures in the pleadings as against the alleged forged signatures in the
documents.

As to Rodrigo's signature in the deed of absolute sale, the Court agrees with the observation of
the CA that none of the pieces of evidence, like identification cards and a pawnshop receipt,
were issued in the same period as when the deed of absolute sale was executed. Moreover, he
admitted that he had used different signatures during his lifetime. Clearly, it was not established
with certainty that the signature on the deed was not Rodrigo's.

The burden of proving the status of a purchaser in good faith lies upon one who asserts
that status, and this onus probandi cannot be discharged by mere invocation of the legal
presumption of good faith. A purchaser in good faith is one who buys property without notice
that some other person has a right to or interest in such property and pays its fair price before
he or she has notice of the adverse claims and interest of another person in the same property.
The honesty of intention which constitutes good faith implies a freedom from knowledge of
circumstances which, ought to put a person on inquiry.

Settled is the rule that every person dealing with registered land may safely rely on the
correctness of the certificate of title issued therefor and the law will in no way oblige him to go
beyond the certificate to determine the condition of the property. Where there is nothing in the
certificate of title to indicate any cloud or vice in the ownership of the property, or any
encumbrance thereon, the purchaser is not required to explore further than what the Torrens
Title upon its face indicates in quest for any hidden defects or inchoate right that may
subsequently defeat his right thereto. However, this rule shall not apply when the party has
actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a reasonably cautious person to
make such inquiry or when the purchaser has knowledge of a defect or the lack of title in his
vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent person to inquire into the status of
the title of the property in litigation.

Asuncion also proffered in her testimony that the fake deed of absolute sale and the Marriage
Contract of Delos Reyes and Rodrigo demonstrating that Delos Reyes' signature in the deed as
falsified augment their claim of collusion between Delos Reyes and Quesada to transfer the title
and eventual sale of the subject property. However, the Court finds that no other evidence
showing that Quesada was aware of the circumstances surrounding the subject property was
presented. As pointed by the CA, there was nothing in the certificate of title under Delos Reyes'
name that would reveal any other claims over the property. The allegation that the close
relationship between Delos Reyes and Quesada indicate the latter's knowledge of defect in the
former's title is purely speculative.
Lastly, the Spouses Coronel aver that their action has not yet prescribed as they are in
possession of the subject property. They never relinquished possession of the property since
the time they bought the same in 1980. Asuncion claimed that they installed a tenant, Arsenio
Antonio (Antonio), on the property.

While the Spouses Coronel admitted in the instant petition that Asuncion's testimony is their
only evidence of possession, they aver that the unrebutted testimony is sufficient and shifted the
burden of proof to Quesada. The Court finds such contention specious. It is settled that each
party must prove his affirmative allegation, and that mere allegation is not evidence. 48 Basic is
the rule that the party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of
evidence. Parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence, not upon the weakness of the
defense offered by their opponent. The Spouses Coronel's evidence must stand on its own merit
and must be scrutinized for veracity and probative value. It is not rendered conclusive simply
because it was not met with evidence from the defense. From the foregoing, the Court finds the
spouses unable to clearly establish: the forgery, Quesada's actual knowledge of defect in Delos
Reyes' title, and their actual, continuous, and peaceful possession of the subject property.

CA did not err in affirming the RTC's resolution to dismiss the Spouses Coronel's complaint.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. CA decision affirmed.