This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2006-11-22 |
CALLEJO, SR., J. |
||||
| Moreover, as correctly noted by the CA, the opinions of handwriting experts, although helpful in the examination of forged documents because of the technical procedure involved in the analysis, are not binding upon the courts.[31] As such, resort to these experts is not mandatory or indispensable to the examination or the comparison of handwriting. A finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity.[32] No less than Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting "with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge." Indeed, the authenticity of signatures is not a highly technical issue in the same sense that questions concerning, e.g., quantum physics or topology, or molecular biology, would constitute matters of a highly technical nature. The opinion of a handwriting expert on the genuineness of a questioned signature is certainly much less compelling upon a judge than an opinion rendered by a specialist on a highly technical issue.[33] | |||||
|
2005-03-18 |
PANGANIBAN, J. |
||||
| It is a well-settled rule, however, that a notarized instrument enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution.[12] Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption. Forgery cannot be presumed; hence, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove it.[13] This, she failed to do. On this point, the CA observed: "x x x. What surprises the Court is that a comparison of the signature of appellant Norma Domingo in the Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of the appellees and the signature in the verification of the complaint manifest a striking similarity to the point that without any contrary proof, it would be safe to conclude that said signatures were written by one and the same person. Sadly, appellant left that matter that way without introducing counteracting evidence. x x x"[14] Petitioner also failed to convince the trial court that the person with whom Respondent Yolanda Robles transacted was in fact not Valentino Domingo. Except for her insistence that her husband was out of the country, petitioner failed to present any other clear and convincing evidence that Valentino was not present at the time of the sale. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to proof.[15] | |||||
|
2005-02-11 |
CORONA, J. |
||||
| As a matter of doctrine, we do not disturb the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals.[12] There are exceptions to this rule but not one of them is present here. As the CA has aptly stated, the party making a material allegation bears the burden of proving it.[13] While the record is replete with documents showing that Jonathan Uy willingly entered into the compromise agreement, it is altogether bereft of even a scintilla of evidence that fraud attended that transaction. | |||||