TL;DR

In a Philippine Supreme Court decision, the Court ruled that a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale was void because the seller’s thumbprint was proven to be a forgery. Despite the usual presumption of regularity for notarized documents, this presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of forgery. This case highlights that even notarization cannot validate a document if fundamental elements like consent, evidenced by a genuine signature or thumbprint, are absent, protecting individuals from fraudulent property transfers.

When Ink Betrays Intent: Unraveling a Thumbprint Forgery in a Land Dispute

Can a forged thumbprint invalidate a notarized document, specifically a Deed of Absolute Sale, in the Philippines? This was the central question in the case of Tortona v. Gregorio. The petitioners, heirs of Rufina Casimiro, claimed that their mother’s thumbprint on a Deed of Absolute Sale, which purportedly transferred her land to Rafaela Casimiro, was a forgery. They argued that Rufina, being illiterate, always needed assistance with documents and that the sale was unknown to them until years after her death. The respondents, heirs of Rafaela, relied on the notarized Deed’s presumption of regularity and the testimony of the notary public.

The legal framework in the Philippines strongly presumes the regularity of notarized documents. This presumption means that documents acknowledged before a notary public are considered duly executed and are admissible in court without further proof of authenticity. As the Supreme Court reiterated, “Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the presumption of regularity.” However, this presumption is not absolute. Philippine jurisprudence allows for this presumption to be challenged and overturned by clear and convincing evidence.

In this case, the petitioners presented expert testimony from a National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) fingerprint examiner, Eriberto B. Gomez, Jr. Gomez compared the thumbprint on the Deed of Absolute Sale with Rufina’s thumbprints on other authentic documents. His initial report concluded that the thumbprints on the Deed were not Rufina’s. While a subsequent report noted some limitations in the standard documents, Gomez clarified that the core fingerprint patterns and ridge flow were consistent across the authentic samples, allowing for a valid comparison. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) sided with the petitioners, finding the Deed of Sale to be a forgery based on the expert’s report and its own visual examination of the thumbprints. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, emphasizing the presumption of regularity for notarized documents and questioning the conclusiveness of the expert evidence due to the limitations noted in the second report.

The Supreme Court, in reversing the Court of Appeals and reinstating the RTC decision, underscored the importance of expert testimony in forgery cases. While acknowledging that courts are not bound by expert opinions, the Court emphasized that expert testimonies are valuable, especially in technical matters like fingerprint analysis. The Court quoted jurisprudence stating, “The relative weight and sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of the trial court to decide, considering the ability and character of the witness, his actions upon the witness stand, the weight and process of the reasoning by which he has supported his opinion, his possible bias in favor of the side for whom he testifies…” The Supreme Court found the NBI examiner’s testimony and reports credible and persuasive, especially since the expert explained his methodology and findings in detail.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted the RTC judge’s independent assessment of the thumbprints, which corroborated the expert’s findings. The judge noted visible differences between the questioned and standard thumbprints, observing different pattern types. This independent judicial assessment is crucial, as the Court stated, “A judge must therefore conduct an independent examination of the signature itself in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to its authenticity and this cannot be done without the original copy being produced in court.” The Court also discredited the testimony of the notary public, Atty. Espiritu, due to prior instances where his credibility was questionable, including notarizing a false affidavit of self-adjudication.

In essence, the Supreme Court’s decision in Tortona v. Gregorio reinforces the principle that the presumption of regularity of notarized documents is not insurmountable. When faced with clear and convincing evidence, such as expert fingerprint analysis and credible witness testimony, courts can and should invalidate notarized documents proven to be fraudulent. This case serves as a crucial reminder of the burden of proof in forgery cases and the weight courts should give to expert evidence and independent judicial scrutiny, especially when fundamental rights like property ownership are at stake.

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: Tortona v. Gregorio, G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018