Lawyerly

GR No. 213455

2015-08-11

BRION, J.

Moreover, the observations of affiant Azores in his Affidavit and Examination Report dated 10 October 2013 do not meet the criteria for identification of forgery as enunciated in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals:[187]

GR No. 196592

2015-04-06

SPS. JUVY MARAÑO AND MARIA LUISA G. MARAÑO v. PRYCE GASES

BRION, J.

Also, we note that the respondent's complaint for cancellation of certificate of title cannot simply be dismissed. Well-settled is the rule that the issue of validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, may be posed only in an action brought to impugn or annul it.[31] Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529[32] clearly provides that a certificate of title can never be the subject of a collateral attack; it cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding instituted in accordance with law. Thus, the present respondent has, in fact, resorted to proper procedure in filing a direct action to attack or impugn the petitioners' certificate of title.

GR No. 197204

2014-03-26

DANILO O. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN

CARPIO, J.

Further, Garcia claimed that the signatures appearing above his names in the PNP Personnel Payrolls, as well as the issued LBP checks, were forged. However, Garcia did not endeavor to prove otherwise. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence[29] and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[30] In the present case, Garcia merely relied on the evidence of the other accused and did not present his own testimonial and documentary evidence to show that his signature in the personnel payrolls were falsified. Thus, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud.

GR No. 154390

2014-03-17

METROPOLITAN FABRICS v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES INC.

BERSAMIN, J.

The contested deed of real estate mortgage was a public document by virtue of its being acknowledged before notary public Atty. Noemi Ferrer.[20] As a notarized document, the deed carried the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,[21] and had in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22] Hence, it was admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and was entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[23] To rebut its authenticity and genuineness, the contrary evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the deed should be upheld.[24]

GR No. 170618

2013-11-20

FAR EASTERN SURETY v. PEOPLE

BRION, J.

We additionally note that a bail bond is required to be in a public document, i.e., a duly notarized document. As a notarized document, it has the presumption of regularity in its favor, which presumption can only be contradicted by evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the regularity of the document should be upheld.[14]

GR No. 192558

2012-02-15

BITOY JAVIER v. FLY ACE CORPORATION

MENDOZA, J.

Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid him on a "per trip" rate as a stevedore, albeit on a pakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail to note that Fly Ace presented documentary proof that Javier was indeed paid on a pakyaw basis per the acknowledgment receipts admitted as competent evidence by the LA. Unfortunately for Javier, his mere denial of the signatures affixed therein cannot automatically sway us to ignore the documents because "forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery."[36]

GR NO. 170215

2007-08-28

SPS. ESMERALDO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK

CHICO-NAZARIO, J.

Although petitioners denied the amounts reflected in the Statement of Account from PNB, they did not interpose any defense to refute the computations therein. Petitioners' mere denials, far from being compelling, had nothing to offer by way of evidence. This then enfeebles the foundation of petitioners' protestation and will not suffice to overcome the computation of their loan obligations as presented in the Statement of Account submitted by PNB.[34]

GR NO. 152007

2007-01-22

PROCOPIO TAPUROC v. MENDE

GARCIA, J.

xxx The records show that they [petitioners] did not institute any action against the order of the then Court of First Instance, 14th Judiciary District. Their inaction and failure to assert any right, if any, over the disputed lot, bars them from recovering the same as said failure clearly asserts to laches. Not to be overlooked is the fact that the petitioners filed their complaint of declaration of nullity only after twenty-nine (29) years from the execution of the alleged forged deed of sale. In the meanwhile, title to the property had already been in the name of respondent Mendes since 1967. The Mendes had been in open, continuous and peaceful possession of the subject land, and had been religiously paying the realty taxes due thereon. These are hard facts that ought not to be disregarded. The Court, in a long line of cases,[21] has uniformly held in favor of the registered owner who had been in possession of a disputed property for a considerable period of time. With the Mendes' possession in this case having been in the concept of an owner and the land itself registered in their names for more than thirty (30) years now, their title thereto had become indefeasible and their possession could no longer be disturbed. The petitioners' failure to take the necessary steps to assert their alleged right for at least twenty-nine (29) years from date of registration of title is fatal to their cause of action on the ground of laches.

GR NO. 147792

2006-01-23

LAZARA P. VIAJE v. PAMINTEL

CARPIO, J.

At any rate, the Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Pedro and Ciriaca duly signed the Deed of Reconveyance. Atty. Santera, whom Pedro confirmed was his former counsel,[23] notarized the Deed of Reconveyance. As a notarized instrument, the Deed of Reconveyance enjoys the presumption of due execution.[24] Only a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary can overcome this presumption.[25] Petitioners have presented no such evidence. Indeed, other than his own denial that he did not sign the Deed of Reconveyance (as allegedly shown by the specimens of his signature), Pedro presented no other proof to corroborate his claim.[26] In an earlier case,[27] this Court held that such allegation and evidence are insufficient to overcome a notarized deed's presumption of due execution, thus:Far from being clear and convincing, all private respondent had to offer by way of evidence was her mere denial that she had signed the same. Such mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the subject Deed, a notarized document. Indeed, even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient, to wit

GR NO. 151060

2005-08-31

JN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE EXPORT

TINGA, J.

Anent the issue of forgery, the CA is correct in reversing the decision of the trial court. Save for the denial of Narciso Cruz that it was not his signature in the Undertaking and the perfunctory comparison of the signatures, nothing in the records would support the claim of forgery. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[52] Mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the Undertaking, which is a notarized document, has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[53] Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient.[54] Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.[55]

GR No. 155856

2004-05-28

LEONORA CEBALLOS v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO

PANGANIBAN, J.

As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict it, one must present evidence that is clear and convincing; otherwise, the document should be upheld.[12]

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Moreover, the observations of affiant Azores in his Affidavit and Examination Report dated 10 October 2013 do not meet the criteria for identification of forgery as enunciated in Ladignon v. Court of Appeals:[187]
	GR No. 196592 2015-04-06	SPS. JUVY MARAÑO AND MARIA LUISA G. MARAÑO v. PRYCE GASES BRION, J.
Also, we note that the respondent's complaint for cancellation of certificate of title cannot simply be dismissed. Well-settled is the rule that the issue of validity of a Torrens title, whether fraudulently issued or not, may be posed only in an action brought to impugn or annul it.[31] Section 48 of Presidential Decree No. 1529[32] clearly provides that a certificate of title can never be the subject of a collateral attack; it cannot be altered, modified, or cancelled except in a direct proceeding instituted in accordance with law. Thus, the present respondent has, in fact, resorted to proper procedure in filing a direct action to attack or impugn the petitioners' certificate of title.
	GR No. 197204 2014-03-26	DANILO O. GARCIA v. SANDIGANBAYAN CARPIO, J.
Further, Garcia claimed that the signatures appearing above his names in the PNP Personnel Payrolls, as well as the issued LBP checks, were forged. However, Garcia did not endeavor to prove otherwise. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence[29] and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[30] In the present case, Garcia merely relied on the evidence of the other accused and did not present his own testimonial and documentary evidence to show that his signature in the personnel payrolls were falsified. Thus, the presumption of validity and regularity prevails over allegations of forgery and fraud.
	GR No. 154390 2014-03-17	METROPOLITAN FABRICS v. PROSPERITY CREDIT RESOURCES INC. BERSAMIN, J.
The contested deed of real estate mortgage was a public document by virtue of its being acknowledged before notary public Atty. Noemi Ferrer.[20] As a notarized document, the deed carried the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution,[21] and had in its favor the presumption of regularity.[22] Hence, it was admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity, and was entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.[23] To rebut its authenticity and genuineness, the contrary evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the deed should be upheld.[24]
	GR No. 170618 2013-11-20	FAR EASTERN SURETY v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
We additionally note that a bail bond is required to be in a public document, i.e., a duly notarized document. As a notarized document, it has the presumption of regularity in its favor, which presumption can only be contradicted by evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise, the regularity of the document should be upheld.[14]
	GR No. 192558 2012-02-15	BITOY JAVIER v. FLY ACE CORPORATION MENDOZA, J.
Fly Ace does not dispute having contracted Javier and paid him on a "per trip" rate as a stevedore, albeit on a pakyaw basis. The Court cannot fail to note that Fly Ace presented documentary proof that Javier was indeed paid on a pakyaw basis per the acknowledgment receipts admitted as competent evidence by the LA. Unfortunately for Javier, his mere denial of the signatures affixed therein cannot automatically sway us to ignore the documents because "forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery."[36]
	GR NO. 170215 2007-08-28	SPS. ESMERALDO v. PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Although petitioners denied the amounts reflected in the Statement of Account from PNB, they did not interpose any defense to refute the computations therein. Petitioners' mere denials, far from being compelling, had nothing to offer by way of evidence. This then enfeebles the foundation of petitioners' protestation and will not suffice to overcome the computation of their loan obligations as presented in the Statement of Account submitted by PNB.[34]
	GR NO. 152007 2007-01-22	PROCOPIO TAPUROC v. MENDE GARCIA, J.
xxx The records show that they [petitioners] did not institute any action against the order of the then Court of First Instance, 14th Judiciary District. Their inaction and failure to assert any right, if any, over the disputed lot, bars them from recovering the same as said failure clearly asserts to laches. Not to be overlooked is the fact that the petitioners filed their complaint of declaration of nullity only after twenty-nine (29) years from the execution of the alleged forged deed of sale. In the meanwhile, title to the property had already been in the name of respondent Mendes since 1967. The Mendes had been in open, continuous and peaceful possession of the subject land, and had been religiously paying the realty taxes due thereon. These are hard facts that ought not to be disregarded. The Court, in a long line of cases,[21] has uniformly held in favor of the registered owner who had been in possession of a disputed property for a considerable period of time. With the Mendes' possession in this case having been in the concept of an owner and the land itself registered in their names for more than thirty (30) years now, their title thereto had become indefeasible and their possession could no longer be disturbed. The petitioners' failure to take the necessary steps to assert their alleged right for at least twenty-nine (29) years from date of registration of title is fatal to their cause of action on the ground of laches.
	GR NO. 147792 2006-01-23	LAZARA P. VIAJE v. PAMINTEL CARPIO, J.
At any rate, the Court finds no reason to disturb the finding of the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, that Pedro and Ciriaca duly signed the Deed of Reconveyance. Atty. Santera, whom Pedro confirmed was his former counsel,[23] notarized the Deed of Reconveyance. As a notarized instrument, the Deed of Reconveyance enjoys the presumption of due execution.[24] Only a clear and convincing evidence to the contrary can overcome this presumption.[25] Petitioners have presented no such evidence. Indeed, other than his own denial that he did not sign the Deed of Reconveyance (as allegedly shown by the specimens of his signature), Pedro presented no other proof to corroborate his claim.[26] In an earlier case,[27] this Court held that such allegation and evidence are insufficient to overcome a notarized deed's presumption of due execution, thus:Far from being clear and convincing, all private respondent had to offer by way of evidence was her mere denial that she had signed the same. Such mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the subject Deed, a notarized document. Indeed, even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient, to wit
	GR NO. 151060 2005-08-31	JN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. PHILIPPINE EXPORT TINGA, J.
Anent the issue of forgery, the CA is correct in reversing the decision of the trial court. Save for the denial of Narciso Cruz that it was not his signature in the Undertaking and the perfunctory comparison of the signatures, nothing in the records would support the claim of forgery. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.[52] Mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the Undertaking, which is a notarized document, has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution.[53] Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient.[54] Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.[55]
	GR No. 155856 2004-05-28	LEONORA CEBALLOS v. INTESTATE ESTATE OF LATE EMIGDIO MERCADO PANGANIBAN, J.
As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To contradict it, one must present evidence that is clear and convincing; otherwise, the document should be upheld.[12]

DIONISIO C. LADIGNON v. CA