472 C A A D

V a e a .C fA ea

472 C A A D
V a e a .C fA ea
*
G.R. No. 84464. June 21, 1991.

SPOUSES JAIME AND TEODORA VILLANUEVA, petitioners, . THE HONORABLE COURT OF

APPEALS and CATALINA I. SANCHEZ, respondents.

Ci i La ; E ide ce; Ma iage C ac ; P e i ; A a iage c ac e de ece a he

e i ha a a a d a a de i g he e e a h ba d a d ife ha e e e ed i a a f
c ac f a iage ; The be d c e a e ide ce f a a iage i he a iage c ac i e f. The C
e a he e ha Ca a a Sa che ha ed he a a he d f R be Sa che h he
b f he a age c ac de a ed a E h b A. Tha e de ce e de ed ece a he
e ha a a a d a a de g he e e a h ba d a d fe ha e e e ed a a f
c ac f a age a d a a e a h R be Sa che c d a he a b h he
ed had eg a e ch d e , a g he e e dd e . I a ge ha he a c
h d e ec E h b A fa f he T a fe Ce f ca e f T e de c b g

* FIR DI I ION.

4 3

. 198, 21, 1991 473

V a e a .C fA ea

R be Sa che a g e, d ega d g he e e e a c e ha he be d c e a e de ce f a
a age he a age c ac e f. A T e ce f ca e he be e de ce f e h f eg e ed
a d, f he c a f he e .
Sa e; Sa e; Sa e; Sa e; P i a e e de c d a id fi e he c ai f he ec e f he a e
h ba d e ih ej dice he cce i a igh f hi he hei . A he g e f
R be Sa che , he ae e de c d a d f e he c a f he ec e f he a e h ba d
e , h e d ce he cce a gh f h he he . Pa e he ca , (a d c ),
a h gh he ed c -a fe a d he eg a e ch d e e e e e e e ed a he a , he
e e ce a ead acce ed b he a c he ba a e f he e e ed a e e .
Sa e; Sa e; P e c i i ; C fi d ha he a icab e ei A ic e 1391 f he Ci i C de b A ic e
1410; The ac i defe e f he dec a a i f he i e i e ce f a c ac d e e- c ibe. C ce g
he e f e c , e f d ha he a cab e e A c e 1391 f he C C de b A c e
1410. A c e 1391 de ha he ac f a e fac ac e c be f ea ca e he e
he ce c f da , e ce, d e f e ce, a e, f a d ac ca ac . The deed f a e
e d e ffe f a f he e defec . The ed e dee g a e ha g bee ed be a
f ge , he e a d e e a ab e a ed fc de A c e 1409 f
he C C de. Acc d g A c e 1410, he ac defe e f he dec a a f he e e ce f a
c ac d e e c be.

/
 Sa e; Sa e; Sa e; Sa e; The Deed f Sa e bei g a f ge , i a a id i e i e a d c d be
cha e ged a a i e, he ac i f i ifica i bei g i e c i ib e. O f d g ha he
e e ha e ed he a d a d a he c f he deed f a e e e he c c a ce ha
ed ed e ec b he a e R be Sa che . O he c a , e a e c ced f he
e e f he ha d ge e ha h g a e had bee f ged he e ed d c e a d ha
he had c e ed he b ec a d he e e . The deed f a e be g a f ge , a a d
e e a d c d be cha e ged a a e, he ac f f ca be g e c b e. The
ae e de , a he d f R be Sa che , ha he ca ac e f he ec e f he a d
e a d

4 4

474 C
A A D

V a e a .C fA ea

e ed f d g .
Re edia La ; E ide ce; E e Wi e e ; I i h i g ha he c e e ce f he e e i e e
a e e a ai ed b he e i i e a i e i ed b he ia j dge. The a dge a d he e
f PC E a e Sa ad a e ab e beca e he e a a f he d c e a d e de
c c a ce h bef e he ac a ed. B he d d c de he fac ha he
f d g e ec b a ed b NBI E a e T e , h c d c ed he e a a a he a ce f he
e e he e e a d af e he ac a ed. I h g ha he c e e ce f he
e e e e a e e a a ed b he e e a e ed b he a dge. The e e
a dd e e he ha d ge e ef e he f d g f he g e e ha d ge e .
Sa e; Sa e; Sa e; C i i c i ed acce he fi di g f he ha d i i g e e . The C ha ef
e a ed he g a e f R be Sa che he e e a e a g he ec d f h ca e, c d g
h e da g bac bef e 1968 a d c ed acce he f d g f he ha d ge e .

PETITION for review of a decision of the Court of Appeals. Aldecoa, Jr., J.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Franco L. Lo ola for petitioners.

CRUZ, J.:

The Regional Trial Court of Cavite dismissed a complaint for the annulment of a deed of sale, holding
that it was not spurious. It was reversed b the Court of Appeals, which found that the vendor s
signature on the questioned document had indeed been forged. The petitioners are now before us and
urge that the decision of the trial court be reinstated.
In her complaint below, herein private respondent Catalina Sanche , claiming to be the widow of
Roberto Sanche , averred that her husband was the owner of a 275 sq. meter parcel of land located at
Rosario, Cavite, which was registered without her knowledge in the name of the herein petitioners on
the strength of an alleged deed of sale executed in their favor b her late husband on Februar 7,
1968. Involving the report of a
4 5

. 198, 21, 1991 475

V a e a .C fA ea

/
handwriting expert from the Philippine Constabular Criminal Investigation Service, who found that
the signature on the document was written b another person, she pra ed that the deed of sale be
annulled, that the registration
1
of the lot in the name of the petitioners be canceled, and that the lot
be reconve ed to her.
In their answer, the petitioners questioned the personalit of the private respondent to file the
complaint, contending that the late Roberto Sanche was never married but had a commonlaw wife
b whom he had two children. On the merits, the claimed that Roberto Sanche had deeded over the
lot to them in 1968 for the sum of P500.00 in partial settlement of a judgment the had obtained
against him. The had sued him after he had failed to pa a P1,300.00 loan the had secured for him
and which 2
the had been forced to settle themselves to prevent foreclosure of the mortgage on their
propert .
On the petitioner s motion, the trial court required the examination of the deed of sale b the
National Bureau of Investigation to determine if it was a forger . Trial proceeded in due time, with
the presentation b the parties of their testimonial and documentar evidence. On June 25, 1986,
Judge Alejandro C. 3
Silapan rendered judgment in favor of the petitioners.
In his decision, the trial judge rejected the testimon of the handwriting experts from the PC and
the NBI, who had both testified that the standard signature of the late Roberto Sanche and the one
written on the alleged deed
4
of sale were written b two different people. He cited Go Fa v. Bank of
the Philippine Islands, in support of his action. Explaining the supposed differences between the
signatures, he said that Roberto Sanche was under serious emotional stress and intensel angr
when he reluctantl signed the document after he had lost the case to them, with the added fact that
the onl wanted to accept his lot for P500.00 and not for the settlement of the entire obligation of
P1,300.00. At that, he said there were reall no fundamental differences between the signatures

________________
1 R , . 23-26.
2 Ibid., . 32-35.
3 Id., . 36-43.
4 46 P . 968.

4 6

476 C A A D
V a e a .C fA ea

compared. Moreover, the signatures examined were from 1970 to 1982 and did not include those
written b Roberto Sanche in 1968.
The decision also noted that Roberto Sanche did not take an step to annul the deed of sale
although he had knowledge thereof as earl as 1968. He thus allowed his action to prescribe under
Article 1431 of the Civil Code. As for the contract of a marriage submitted b the private respondent,
this should also be rejected because although the document was dated September 21, 1964, the
Torrens certificate issued to Roberto Sanche over the subject land on August 25, 1965, described his
civil status as single. It was also doubtful if she could bring the action for reconve ance alone, even
assuming she was the surviving spouse of Roberto Sanche , considering that he left illegitimate
children and collateral relatives who were also entitled to share in his estate.
5
As earlier stated, the decision was reversed b the Court of Appeals, which held that the trial
court did err, as contended b the appellant, in holding that the deed of sale was not spurious; that
the action to annul it had alread prescribed; that Catalina Sanche was not the widow of Roberto
Sanche ; and that she had no capacit to institute the complaint.
Before us now, the petitioners fault the respondent court for: a) upholding the testimon of the
expert witnesses against the findings of fact of the trial court; b) annulling the deed of sale; c)
declaring that the action to annul the deed of sale had not et prescribed; d) not declaring the private
respondent guilt of estoppel; and e) not sustaining the decision of the trial court.

/
 We see no reason to disturb the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It is consonant with the
evidence of record and the applicable law and jurisprudence.
The Court notes at the outset that Catalina Sanche has proved her status as the widow
6
of Roberto
Sanche with her submission of the marriage contract denominated as Exhibit A. That evidence
rendered unnecessar the presumption that a man and a woman deporting themselves as husband
and wife have entered into a lawful contract of marriage and

_______________
5 A c a, J ., J. ponen e; T a a Vc , JJ., conc rring.
6 E b Pa , . 1.

. 198, 21, 1991 477

V a e a .C fA ea

ma also explain wh Roberto Sanche could not marr the woman b whom he supposedl had two
illegitimate children, assuming these persons did exist. It is strange that the trial court should reject
Exhibit A in favor of the Transfer Certificate of Title describing Roberto Sanche as
single, disregarding the elementar principle that the best documentar evidence of a marriage is
the marriage contract itself. A Torrens certificate is the best evidence of ownership of registered land,
not of the civil status of the owner.
As the surviving spouse of Roberto Sanche , the private respondent could validl file the complaint
for the recover of her late husband s propert , without prejudice to the successional rights of his
other heirs. Parentheticall , (and curiousl ), although the supposed common-law wife and her
illegitimate children were never presented at the trial, their existence was readil accepted b the
trial court on the basis alone of the petitioner s unsupported statements.
Coming now to the questioned signature, we find it significant that the examination b the NBI
was requested b the petitioners themselves but in the end it was the private respondent who
presented the NBI handwriting expert as her own witness. The explanation is obvious. The
petitioners hoped to refute the findings of the PC handwriting expert with the findings of the NBI
handwriting expert, but as it turned out the findings of the two witnesses coincided. Both PC
Examiner Cora on Salvador and NBI Examiner Zenaida J. Torres expressed the informed view that
the signature on the deed of sale was not written b Roberto Sanche .
The did not conjure this conclusion out of thin air but supported it with knowledgeable testimon
extensivel given on direct and cross-examination on10 the various characteristics and differences of
the signatures the had examined and com-pared. The trial judge said the testimon of PC
Examiner

_______________
7 Ibid., E b B, . 2.
TSN, F b a 17, 1986, . 24-25.
TSN, F b a 25, 1985, . 32-33; TSN, F b a 17, 1986, . 50.
10 TSN, F b a 25, 1985, . 33-39; TSN, F b a 17, 1986, . 39-50; TSN, A 30, 1986, . 21-30.

478 C A A D
V a e a .C fA ea

Salvador was not reliable because her examination of the document was done under circumstance
not so trustworth before the action was instituted. But he did not consider the fact that her findings
/
were corroborated b NBI Examiner Torres, who conducted her own examination at the instance of
the petitioners themselves and af er the action was instituted. It is worth noting that the competence
of the two expert witnesses was never assailed b the petitioners nor was it questioned b the trial
judge. The petitioners also did not present their own handwriting expert to refute the findings of the
government handwriting experts.
The Court has itself examined the signatures of Roberto Sanche in11 the several instruments
among the records of this case, including those dating back to before 1968 and is inclined to accept
the findings of the handwriting experts. The case invoked b the petitioners is not applicable because
the differences in the signatures compared in the case at bar were, as the trial judge found, caused
not b time but b the tension gripping Roberto Sanche when he signed the deed of sale.
Incidentall , the petitioners have not sufficientl established the reason for such tension, which
appears to be a mere conjecture of the trial judge. No proof was submitted about their filing of the
complaint against Roberto Sanche . Petitioner Jaime Villanueva himself admitted under oath that he
did not read the12
decision in the case nor did he ask his law er how much had been awarded against
the defendant. Nobod testified about Roberto s state of mind when he allegedl signed the
document, and in Manila at that although the persons were residing in Cavite. Even the witnesses to
the Bilihan were not presented nor was an explanation for their absence offered.
The explanation given b the petitioners for their dela in registering the deed of sale is not
convincing. That dela lasted for all of thirteen ears. The petitioners suggest the are simple
peasants and did not appreciate the need for the immediate transfer of the propert in their name.
The also sa that the

_______________
11 E b A, E b Pa , . 1; E b 7, E b D a , . 167.
12 TSN, Ma 30, 1985, . 43.

. 198, 21, 1991 479

V a e a .C fA ea

forgot. The evidence shows, however, that the understood the need for registering their propert for
purposes of using it as collateral in case the wanted to borrow mone . It would appear that the
thought of simulating the sale registering the subject lot when their own lands were insufficient to
secure a P100,000.00 loan their daughter wanted to borrow.
Concerning the question of prescription, we find that the applicable rule is not Article 1391 of the
Civil Code but Article 1410. Article 1391 provides that the action for annulment of a contract
prescribes in four ears in cases where the vice consists of intimidation, violence, undue influence,
mistake, fraud or lack capacit . The deed of sale in question does not suffer from an of these defects.
The supposed vendee s signature having been proved to be a forger , the instrument is totall void or
inexistent as absolutel simulated or fictitious under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. According to
Article 1410, the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not
prescribe.
Finall , petitioners invoke Article 1431 of the Civil Code and contend that the respondent court
erred in not declaring the private respondent and her late husband estopped from questioning the
deed of sale until after fourteen ears from its execution. The inference that Roberto Sanche and the
private respondent knew about the instrument from that date has not been proved b the evidence of
record. Moreover, we fail to see the applicabilit of Article 1431, which provides that through
estoppel an admission or representation is rendered conclusive upon the person making it and cannot
be denied or disproved as against the person rel ing thereon. Neither the private respondent nor her
late husband has made an admission or representation to the petitioners regarding the subject land
that the are supposed to have relied upon.
Our own finding is that the petitioners have not proved the validit and authenticit of the deed of
sale or even the circumstances that supposedl led to its execution b the late Roberto Sanche . On
/
the contrar , we are convinced from the testimonies of the handwriting experts that his signature
had been forged on the questioned document and that he had not conve ed the subject land to the
petitioners. The deed of sale being a forger , it was totall void or inexistent and so could be
4 0

480 C A A D
Sa aha g Ma ggaga a g R a Pa . NLRC

challenged at an time, the action for its nullification being imprescriptible. The private respondent,
as the widow of Roberto Sanche , has the capacit to sue for the recover of the land in question and
is not estopped from doing so.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED and the challenged decision is AFFIRMED, with costs
against the petitioners.
SO ORDERED.

Nar a a (Chairman), Gri o-Aq ino and Medialdea, JJ., concur.

Ganca co, J., On leave.

Pe i ion denied, j dgmen affirmed.

No e. Findings of expert witnesses will onl serve as a guide for the courts to arrive at a finding
after considering all the facts of a given case. (People . Aldana, 175 SCRA 635.)

o0o