TL;DR

The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of a notarized Deed of Sale, settling a family property dispute. The court ruled that a notarized document holds a presumption of regularity and authenticity. To overturn this presumption and prove forgery, the challenging party must present clear, convincing, and more than just preponderant evidence. In this case, the heirs contesting the sale failed to provide sufficient proof of forgery beyond a mere allegation, thus the Deed of Sale stood, and the claim for partition of land was denied. This decision reinforces the reliability of notarized documents in property transactions and highlights the high burden of proof required to challenge their authenticity in Philippine courts.

Family Land Feud: The Unchallenged Deed and the Weight of a Notary’s Seal

In a dispute amongst the heirs of Spouses Angel and Francisca Liwagon, the central question revolved around the validity of a Deed of Sale. The petitioners, children and grandchildren of the spouses, sought to annul a sale made by their father, Angel Liwagon, to their brother’s wife, Regina Liwagon, arguing it was a forgery. This stemmed from a disagreement over land originally awarded provisionally to Angel Liwagon. After Angel’s death, some heirs demanded partition, but were confronted with a Deed of Sale, purportedly signed by Angel years prior, transferring the land to Regina. The petitioners claimed forgery and demanded partition, while the respondents, heirs of Demetrio and Regina Liwagon, asserted the validity of the sale and their rightful ownership. This case highlights the critical evidentiary standard required to challenge a notarized document in Philippine law, particularly when allegations of forgery surface within family property disputes.

The core of the legal battle rested on whether the petitioners successfully proved the Deed of Sale was indeed a forgery. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) and the Court of Appeals (CA) both ruled against the petitioners, upholding the Deed of Sale’s validity. Both courts emphasized the presumption of regularity afforded to notarized documents. The Supreme Court, in this decision, reiterated this principle. It underscored that a notarized document is a public document and carries a presumption of regularity. This means it is presumed to be authentic and duly executed unless proven otherwise by clear, convincing, and more than just preponderant evidence.

The petitioners’ primary argument was that Angel Liwagon’s signature on the Deed of Sale was forged. However, the Court found their evidence lacking. The only evidence presented to support the forgery claim was the testimony of one petitioner, Josefina Liwagon-Escauso, who stated the signature wasn’t her father’s. Crucially, no expert witness was presented to analyze the signatures, nor was the notary public who notarized the document called to testify. The Supreme Court cited established jurisprudence, stating that forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proven with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden of proof lies with the party alleging forgery.

The Court explained that simply pointing out perceived differences in signatures is insufficient to overcome the presumption of regularity. Drawing from Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission and Relations of the United Presbyterian Church in the USA, the decision highlighted the complexities of handwriting analysis. Factors beyond mere visual similarity, such as the writer’s physical state, writing surface, and writing instrument, can affect signature appearance. Therefore, a visual comparison alone, especially without expert analysis, is generally inadequate to conclusively prove forgery. In this case, the petitioners’ reliance on a mere visual comparison of signatures between the Deed of Sale and other documents signed by Angel Liwagon fell short of the required evidentiary threshold.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court addressed a new argument raised by the petitioners only at the Supreme Court level – that Angel Liwagon was not yet the registered owner of the land at the time of the sale in 1972. The Court firmly rejected this argument, stating that issues and arguments not raised in the lower courts cannot be raised for the first time on appeal. The petitioners’ initial cause of action was solely based on forgery. Introducing a new argument regarding Angel’s ownership status at this late stage was procedurally improper and violated due process. The Court emphasized that basic fairness and procedural rules prevent parties from raising new issues on appeal that could have been addressed and litigated in the trial court.

In essence, this case serves as a strong reminder of the legal weight of notarized documents in the Philippines. It underscores that while notarized documents are not infallible, they are afforded a strong presumption of regularity. Overturning this presumption requires substantial evidence, particularly when alleging forgery. Mere allegations or visual comparisons of signatures are insufficient. Parties challenging notarized documents must present clear, convincing, and often expert evidence to substantiate their claims. This ruling reinforces the stability and reliability of notarized transactions, particularly in property law, and sets a high bar for those seeking to invalidate them based on forgery claims.

FAQs

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact Atty. Gabriel Ablola through gaboogle.com or via email at connect@gaboogle.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: Heirs of Liwagon v. Heirs of Liwagon, G.R. No. 193117, November 26, 2014