Coro vs. Nasayao

Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging it; a notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of authenticity and due execution and may be overturned only by strong, complete, and conclusive proof of falsity or nullity. Moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses cannot be sustained absent proof and stated legal or factual justification.

Petitioner Moises G. Coro and respondent Montano B. Nasayao are stepbrothers. The dispute concerns a parcel of land in Cancohoy, Numancia, Surigao del Norte, with an area of 1,375 square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 16940. The controversy turns on the authenticity of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1963, and on the evidentiary presumptions attaching to notarized documents and the scope of review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner Moises G. Coro alleged that he owned a parcel of land in Cancohoy, Numancia, Surigao del Norte, with an area of 1,375 square meters and covered by Tax Declaration No. 16940. On July 23, 2003, he discovered that respondent Montano B. Nasayao, his stepbrother, had acquired the property through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 1, 1963, which petitioner claimed was forged. Petitioner denied receiving any money as consideration and denied personally appearing before the notary public, Pedro Berro.

Respondent's wife and children, in their Answer-in-Intervention, asserted that on April 1, 1963, petitioner sold the property to respondent. On April 19, 1963, respondent had the title transferred in his name and paid the corresponding taxes, as shown by Tax Declaration No. 17518. On December 10, 1996, respondent was awarded Original Certificate of Title No. 15011. In February 2003, petitioner approached respondent's wife and son to buy back the land, but his offer was refused. Respondent's family further alleged that petitioner took advantage of respondent's illness and surreptitiously occupied the property.

At trial, petitioner testified that the signatures on the 1963 Deed of Absolute Sale were forged. He presented a Deed of Donation, a Senior Citizen Identification Card, and a Notice containing signatures of his wife from sometime in 1995, but did not furnish the court with a specimen of his own signature. The RTC compared petitioner's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale with his signature in the Verification and found them the same. It also compared the wife's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale with her signatures in the Affidavit, Deed of Donation, Senior Citizen ID, and Notice and found them similar. The CA examined petitioner's specimen signatures on his Social Security System Identification Card, the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping attached to his complaint, and Community Tax Certificates issued in 2000 and 2003, and found no variance when compared with the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale. The CA observed that the strokes of the letters were similar and that no stark or distinguishing difference was noticeable, even though the deed was executed in 1963 while the comparison signatures were affixed in 2003. Petitioner's daughter Analiza Cambaya and stepdaughter Nenita Oga also testified, but the CA found that their testimonies did not supplant the presumption of regularity of the deed of sale as a public document. The lower courts concluded that petitioner failed to prove forgery by clear and convincing evidence.

• Validity of the Deed of Sale / Forgery: Petitioner argued that the CA erred in affirming the RTC's Decision upholding the validity of the subject Deed of Absolute Sale; he maintained that the signatures on the 1963 deed were forged and that he neither received consideration nor personally appeared before the notary public.
• Moral and Exemplary Damages: Petitioner contended that the award of moral and exemplary damages was inappropriate because there was no proof of respondent's alleged moral suffering, mental anguish, and similar injury.
• Attorney's Fees and Litigation Costs: Petitioner argued that the filing of the complaint was not malicious and that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate; not every winning party is entitled to an automatic grant of attorney's fees and litigation costs.

• Validity of the Deed of Sale: Respondent maintained, through his wife and children's Answer-in-Intervention, that on April 1, 1963, petitioner sold the subject property to respondent; respondent had the title transferred in his name on April 19, 1963, paid the corresponding taxes, and was later awarded Original Certificate of Title No. 15011.
• Moral Damages: Respondent's complaint alleged that due to petitioner's fraud, bad faith, and illegal manipulation, he sustained mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and mental shock.
• Exemplary Damages: Respondent argued in his complaint that petitioner should be held liable for exemplary damages to avoid a repetition of similar acts and as a correction for the public good.

• Question of Fact Under Rule 45: Whether the CA erred in affirming the RTC's Decision upholding the validity of the subject Deed of Absolute Sale, where the genuineness of the deed and signatures is a question of fact not reviewable under Rule 45.
• Forgery: Whether petitioner established forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
• Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Document: Whether the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale is presumed authentic and regularly executed, and whether petitioner rebutted that presumption.
• Damages: Whether the awards of moral damages, exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses were proper.

• Question of Fact Under Rule 45: No. The genuineness of the deed and signatures is a question of fact; Rule 45 limits review to questions of law, and none of the recognized exceptions applies.
• Forgery: No. Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence; petitioner's uncorroborated testimony failed to establish it.
• Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Document: No, petitioner did not overcome it. A duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution; clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence is required to overturn it.
• Damages: No. The awards of moral and exemplary damages, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses were deleted for lack of proof and legal basis.

• Question of Fact Under Rule 45: Rule 45, Section 1 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law. Questions of fact requiring re-evaluation of evidence are inappropriate under Rule 45. The issue of whether the signatures on the April 1, 1963 Deed of Absolute Sale were forged is a question of fact, and resolving ownership and title would require reception and evaluation of evidence. Petitioner was asking the Court to make its own factual determination, not to resolve which law properly applies. No recognized exception to the rule exists. The Court defers to the factual findings of trial courts, especially when undisturbed by the appellate court, and both the RTC and the CA concluded that petitioner failed to discharge his burden.
• Forgery: Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides that burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim or defense by the amount of evidence required by law. Forgery cannot be presumed; an allegation of forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden lies on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery must establish the case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence of greater weight or more convincing than that offered in opposition. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is claimed to have been forged. Since petitioner assailed the 1963 Deed of Sale, he had the burden of making out a clear-cut case that the document was bogus. Both the RTC and the CA concluded that he failed. The CA examined petitioner's specimen signatures on his Social Security System Identification Card, the Verification and Certification of Non-Forum Shopping, and Community Tax Certificates issued in 2000 and 2003, and found no variance when compared with the signature on the deed of absolute sale. The strokes of the letters were similar, and no stark or distinguishing difference was noticeable, even though the deed was executed in 1963 while the comparison signatures were affixed in 2003. Petitioner's alleged signature in the affidavit submitted by respondent was also significantly the same as the one in the deed of sale. To establish forgery, the extent, kind, and significance of the variation in the standard and disputed signatures must be demonstrated; the variation must be due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer; and the resemblance must be the result of a more or less skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance naturally appearing in a genuine writing. Petitioner's uncorroborated testimony failed to demonstrate these criteria.
• Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Document: The questioned Deed of Absolute Sale is notarized. A duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution; it is presumed valid, regular, and genuine to maintain public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. In Libres, et al. vs. Sps. Delos Santos and Olba, the Court stated that notarial documents executed with all the legal requisites under the safeguard of a notarial certificate are evidence of a high character; to overcome their recitals, the party challenging them must prove his claim with clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. A notarial document, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with law, must be sustained in full force and effect so long as the party impugning it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law. Without such evidence, the presumption of regularity, the evidentiary weight conferred upon the public document with respect to its execution, and the statements and authenticity of the signatures thereon stand. On its face, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale is entitled to full faith and credit and is deemed in full force and effect. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish forgery giving rise to a spurious contract. Petitioner failed in this respect.
• Damages: Moral damages are compensatory damages for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong; they are not punitive but are designed to compensate the claimant for actual injury suffered. Although incapable of pecuniary estimation, moral damages must be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Respondent's complaint alleged that due to fraud, bad faith, and illegal manipulation, he sustained mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, and mental shock, but other than bare allegations, respondent failed to present evidence supporting his assertions. Moral damages cannot be awarded, whether in a civil or criminal case, in the absence of proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, or similar injury. The award must be solidly anchored on a definite showing that respondent actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings; mere allegations do not suffice and must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof. Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. The requisites for exemplary damages are: first, they may be imposed only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages awarded; second, the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages; and third, the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and the award is allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanted, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. Because respondent is not entitled to moral damages, the award of exemplary damages must likewise be deleted for lack of legal basis. The awards of P20,000.00 and P10,000.00 as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, respectively, were also deleted for lack of basis. The trial court must state the factual, legal, or equitable justification for the award of attorney's fees in the body of the decision. Here, other than the statement that respondent was compelled to secure the services of counsel to defend his rights, the RTC failed to state the factual or legal justification for its award of attorney's fees, so it must be deleted.

• Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence — Forgery cannot be presumed. The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery, who must establish the case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence of greater weight or more convincing than that offered in opposition. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is claimed to have been forged. To establish forgery, the extent, kind, and significance of the variation in the standard and disputed signatures must be demonstrated; the variation must be due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer; and the resemblance must be the result of a more or less skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance naturally appearing in a genuine writing. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that petitioner's uncorroborated testimony failed to prove forgery.
• Presumption of regularity of notarized documents — A duly notarized contract enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution; it is presumed valid, regular, and genuine to maintain public confidence in the integrity of notarized documents. To overcome its recitals, the party challenging it must prove his claim with clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. A notarial document, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with law, must be sustained in full force and effect so long as the party impugning it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law. The Court applied this doctrine because the subject Deed of Absolute Sale was notarized and petitioner failed to present the required evidence to overturn the presumption.
• Rule 45 limits review to questions of law — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 shall raise only questions of law. Questions of fact, which would require a re-evaluation of the evidence, are inappropriate under Rule 45, and the Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of trial courts, especially when undisturbed by the appellate court, are accorded finality. The Court applied this doctrine in holding that the issue of whether the signatures on the 1963 Deed of Sale were forged is a question of fact beyond its jurisdiction under the petition.
• Moral damages require proof — Moral damages are compensatory damages for mental pain and suffering or mental anguish resulting from a wrong; they are not punitive and must be proportional to and in approximation of the suffering inflicted. Moral damages cannot be awarded, whether in a civil or criminal case, in the absence of proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, or similar injury. The award must be solidly anchored on a definite showing that the claimant actually experienced emotional and mental sufferings; mere allegations do not suffice and must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof. The Court applied this doctrine in deleting the award of moral damages because respondent presented only bare allegations.
• Requisites of exemplary damages — Exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. The requisites are: first, they may be imposed only in addition, among others, to compensatory damages, and cannot be recovered as a matter of right, their determination depending upon the amount of compensatory damages awarded; second, the claimant must first establish his right to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages; and third, the wrongful act must be accompanied by bad faith, and the award is allowed only if the guilty party acted in a wanted, fraudulent, reckless, oppressive, or malevolent manner. The Court applied this doctrine in deleting exemplary damages because respondent was not entitled to moral damages, leaving no legal basis for exemplary damages.
• Attorney's fees require justification in the decision — The trial court must state the factual, legal, or equitable justification for the award of attorney's fees in the body of the decision. The Court applied this doctrine in deleting the award of attorney's fees because the RTC merely stated that respondent was compelled to secure the services of counsel and failed to state the factual or legal justification for the award.

• "Forgery is never presumed; being the party who alleged forgery, appellant has the burden of proving the same by clear, positive and convincing evidence, which appellant failed to do so here." — This passage, quoted from the CA Resolution, states the controlling burden of proof for forgery and explains why petitioner's claim failed.
• "To establish forgery, the extent, kind, and significance of the variation in the standard and disputed signatures must be demonstrated. More importantly, it must be proved that the variation is due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It must be shown that the resemblance is a result of a more or less skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing." — This passage sets out the canonical criteria for proving forgery through signature comparison and is the ratio for rejecting petitioner's forgery claim.
• "A notarial document, guaranteed by public attestation in accordance with the law, must be sustained in full force and effect so long as he who impugns it does not present strong, complete, and conclusive proof of its falsity or nullity on account of some flaws or defects provided by law." — This passage defines the high evidentiary standard required to overcome the presumption of regularity of a notarized document.
• "Mere allegations do not suffice as they must be substantiated by clear and convincing proof." — This passage states the rule that moral damages cannot rest on bare allegations and supports the deletion of the damages awards.

• Spouses Agunaldo vs. Torres, Jr., G.R. No. 225808, September 11, 2017 — Cited for the rule that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
• Gepulle-Garbo vs. Spouses Garabato, 750 Phil. 846, 855 (2015) — Cited for the burden of proof in forgery cases and for according finality to factual findings of trial courts, especially when affirmed by the appellate court.
• Almeda, et al. vs. Santos, et al., G.R. No. 194189, September 14, 2017 — Cited for the criteria to establish forgery through comparison of standard and disputed signatures.
• Libres, et al. vs. Sps. Delos Santos and Olba, 577 Phil. 509 (2008) — Cited for the presumption of regularity of notarized documents and the requirement of clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence to overcome it.
• Rodriguez vs. Your Own Home Development Corporation (YOHDC), G.R. No. 199451, August 15, 2018 — Cited for the notarized document's presumption of regularity and the rule that factual findings are not reviewable under Rule 45.
• Gatan, et al. vs. Vinarao, et al., G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017 — Cited for the rule that questions of fact are inappropriate under Rule 45 and for the presumption of regularity of notarized documents.
• Quezon City Government vs. Dacara, 499 Phil. 228, 244 (2005) — Cited for the rule that moral damages cannot be awarded absent proof of physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, or similar injury.
• Sps. Timado vs. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., et al., 789 Phil. 453, 459 (2016) — Cited for the requisites of exemplary damages.
• Spouses Yulo vs. Bank of the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 217044, January 16, 2019 — Cited for the requirement that the trial court state the factual, legal, or equitable justification for attorney's fees in the body of the decision.

• Rule 45, Section 1, Rules of Court — Provides that a petition for review on certiorari shall raise only questions of law, which must be distinctly set forth. The provision was applied to hold that the issue of whether the signatures on the 1963 Deed of Absolute Sale were forged is a question of fact not reviewable under Rule 45.
• Rule 131, Section 1, Rules of Court — Provides that burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in issue, by the amount of evidence required by law. The provision was applied to place the burden on petitioner, who alleged forgery, to prove it by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
• Article 2229, Civil Code — Provides that exemplary or corrective damages are imposed by way of example or correction for the public good, in addition to moral, temperate, liquidated, or compensatory damages. The provision was cited in relation to the requisites for exemplary damages and supported the deletion of the award because respondent was not entitled to moral damages.

Peralta (Chairperson), A. Reyes, Jr., and Hernando, JJ., concurred. Leonen, J., was on leave.