Gatan vs. Vinarao

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law, and the issue of whether signatures on a notarized deed of absolute sale are forgeries is a question of fact that cannot be reviewed by the Supreme Court absent any recognized exception.

Petitioners Rogelia Gatan and her sons Rizalino and Ferdinand Gatan — the latter two as heirs of the late Bernardino Gatan, Rogelia's husband — sought to nullify a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989, by which Bernardino allegedly conveyed a 245-square-meter portion of the spouses' property to Sostones Vinarao and his wife Jesusa for ₱4,000.00. The subject property was part of a 406-square-meter parcel in Casibarag Sur, Cabagan, Isabela, surveyed in Bernardino's name under LMB Form No. 23-37-R dated October 26, 1964. Bernardino died on March 19, 2000, survived by Rogelia and seven children. Respondent Mildred Cabauatan is the daughter of the spouses Vinarao and a relative of Bernardino; the spouses Cabauatan had been allowed to temporarily erect a house on the property sometime in January 2002.

The spouses Bernardino and Rogelia Gatan acquired a parcel of land in Casibarag Sur, Cabagan, Isabela, measuring approximately 406 square meters, surveyed in Bernardino's name under LMB Form No. 23-37-R dated October 26, 1964. Bernardino died on March 19, 2000, survived by Rogelia and their seven children, including petitioners Rizalino and Ferdinand.

Sometime in January 2002, respondent spouses Mildred and Nomar Cabauatan asked Rogelia for permission to temporarily erect a house on the property. Rogelia agreed, as Mildred was Bernardino's relative. More than four years later, in March 2006, Rogelia learned of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989, supposedly executed by Bernardino conveying approximately 245 square meters of the property to Sostones Vinarao and his wife, respondent Jesusa, for ₱4,000.00. The deed was notarized by Atty. Alfredo C. Mabbayad. On June 15, 1990, the spouses Vinarao declared the property in Sostones' name for tax purposes under Tax Declaration No. 99-06-008-0343-R, and respondents had been paying real property taxes on the property as evidenced by tax receipts dated January 11, 1990, January 26, 2005, and March 15, 2006.

Rogelia questioned the deed, contending that Bernardino was illiterate and could not have signed it, and that the space for marital consent bore the signature of one "Aurelia Ramos Gatan," not her own. She confronted the spouses Vinarao and demanded that the spouses Cabauatan vacate the property. The parties appeared before the barangay but failed to settle amicably; a Certificate to File Action was issued on April 10, 2006. Rogelia had also filed a criminal complaint for falsification of public document and use of falsified document against respondents Jesusa and Mildred before the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Ilagan, Isabela, docketed as I.S. No. 2006E-637, but it was dismissed on September 26, 2006 for lack of probable cause.

Petitioners filed a Complaint for Nullity of Document and Recovery of Possession with Damages on January 3, 2007, docketed as Civil Case No. 22-1061. Respondents countered that the subject property was previously owned by Pedro Gatan, Bernardino's father, and that Carmen Gatan — mother of Sostones and grandmother of Mildred — had always been in actual possession. Respondents admitted the spouses Gatan eventually owned the property but asserted they validly sold it to the spouses Vinarao through the notarized deed. Respondents denied falsifying Bernardino's signature and claimed that Rogelia signed the deed in her real name, Aurelia Ramos Gatan. Respondents also noted that at the barangay proceedings, petitioners demanded an additional ₱50,000.00 for the property, which respondents refused because they had already fully paid the consideration.

At trial, Rogelia testified that Bernardino was unschooled, that she always signed for him when his signature was needed, that she did not authorize the sale, and that she did not know any "Aurelia Ramos Gatan." Petitioners submitted specimen signatures of Rogelia and Bernardino's name in Rogelia's handwriting. Respondents presented Carlos Vinarao, who testified that he personally witnessed Bernardino and Rogelia sign the deed before the notary public; Nenita Gatan, Bernardino's sister, who stated she knew Bernardino's wife by both names "Rogelia" and "Aurelia"; and respondent Jesusa, who affirmed the respondents' allegations. The RTC credited Carlos's testimony as an instrumental witness and upheld the validity of the notarized deed, finding Rogelia's denial uncorroborated and self-serving. The Court of Appeals affirmed, sustaining the RTC's findings on witness credibility and the presumption of regularity attaching to the notarized document. The Supreme Court observed that visual comparison of the signatures of "Aurelia Ramos Gatan" and Rogelia revealed similarities, particularly in the surname "Gatan," and that differences between Bernardino's signature on the deed and the specimen submitted by petitioners were explainable by the fact that the specimen was Bernardino's name in Rogelia's handwriting, not Bernardino's own signature.

• Forgery of Vendor's Signature: Petitioner argued that Bernardino's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was forged because he was illiterate and could not have signed without Rogelia's assistance, she being the one who signed for and on behalf of Bernardino whenever his signature was needed.
• Absence of Marital Consent: Petitioner maintained that the deed lacked Rogelia's marital consent because the signature appearing as "Aurelia Ramos Gatan" was not hers, and that Bernardino was never married to one Aurelia Ramos Gatan.
• Void and Inexistent Contract: Petitioner asseverated that the Deed of Absolute Sale is void and inexistent absent the spouses Gatan's consent, rendering it without legal effect.

• Validity of the Sale: Respondent countered that the spouses Gatan validly sold the subject property to the spouses Vinarao through the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989.
• Authenticity of Signatures: Respondent argued that Bernardino could write his own name and that Rogelia signed the deed in her real name, Aurelia Ramos Gatan, denying any falsification.
• Tax Declarations and Possession: Respondent asserted that the spouses Vinarao declared the property in Sostones' name for real property tax purposes and had been paying taxes thereon, evidencing their ownership and possession.
• Prior Dismissal of Criminal Complaint: Respondent noted that Rogelia's criminal complaint for falsification against respondents Jesusa and Mildred was dismissed for lack of probable cause, and that petitioners had demanded an additional ₱50,000.00 at the barangay proceedings, which respondents refused having already fully paid the consideration.

• Jurisdiction under Rule 45: Whether the issue of whether the signatures of Bernardino and petitioner Rogelia appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale are forgeries is a question of fact beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition.
• Validity of the Notarized Deed: Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court's decision upholding the validity of the subject Deed of Absolute Sale.

• Jurisdiction under Rule 45: No. Whether the signatures on the deed are forgeries is a question of fact requiring re-evaluation of evidence, which is inappropriate under Rule 45, and none of the recognized exceptions to the general rule applies.
• Validity of the Notarized Deed: No. The notarized Deed of Absolute Sale enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, which petitioners failed to rebut with clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence.

• Jurisdiction under Rule 45: A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45, Section 1 is limited to questions of law; the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. A question of law arises when the doubt concerns what the law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact exists when the doubt concerns the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. Whether the signatures of Bernardino and Rogelia on the Deed of Absolute Sale are forgeries is a question of fact, as it requires re-evaluation of the evidence already considered below. While the general rule admits of exceptions — such as conflicting findings between the CA and trial court, findings based on speculation, or grave abuse of discretion — none of these exceptions exists in this case. The factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, particularly where both lower courts' findings completely coincide. The Court's review is limited to errors of law committed by the appellate court, not a re-examination of the evidence adduced in the court a quo.
• Validity of the Notarized Deed: The Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989 is a duly notarized document enjoying the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument. To overturn this presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Petitioners presented only Rogelia's uncorroborated, self-serving testimony that Bernardino was illiterate and that she did not sign as "Aurelia Ramos Gatan." Forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, with the burden on the party alleging it. A mere disclaimer of one's signature on a public document is insufficient; at the very least, corroborating witnesses or an expert witness should be presented, and petitioners presented neither. Respondents, by contrast, presented Carlos Vinarao, an instrumental witness who personally saw Bernardino and Rogelia sign the deed before the notary public, whose testimony is admissible under Rule 132, Section 22 to prove the genuineness of handwriting. Nenita Gatan, Bernardino's sister, testified that she knew Rogelia also by the name "Aurelia." The RTC credited Carlos's positive testimony over Rogelia's bare denial, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court further observed that visual comparison of the signatures of "Aurelia Ramos Gatan" and Rogelia revealed similarities, particularly in the surname "Gatan," and that differences between Bernardino's signature on the deed and the specimen submitted by petitioners are explainable by the fact that the specimen was Bernardino's name in Rogelia's handwriting, not Bernardino's own signature. The trial court's assessment of witness credibility, affirmed by the Court of Appeals, is conclusive and binding absent arbitrariness or oversight of some fact of weight and influence.

• Presumption of Authenticity and Due Execution of Notarized Documents — A duly notarized document enjoys the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith and credence attached to a public instrument. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that forgery gave rise to a spurious contract. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that petitioners failed to present such evidence, their bare denial being insufficient to overcome the presumption attaching to the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Burden of Proving Forgery — Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, with the burden of proof on the party alleging forgery. The fact of forgery can be established by comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic, genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged. One who disavows the authenticity of his signature on a public document bears the responsibility to present evidence to that effect; mere disclaimer is not sufficient, and at the very least corroborating witnesses or an expert witness should be presented. The Court found that petitioners failed to meet this burden, presenting only Rogelia's uncorroborated testimony and specimen signatures that did not conclusively establish forgery.
• Finality of Factual Findings of Trial Courts — The factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court, unless the findings are not supported by the evidence on record, or the CA's findings are contrary to those of the trial court. The Court applied this doctrine by holding that the RTC's findings on witness credibility, affirmed by the CA, are binding and conclusive, as no recognized exception to the rule applies.
• Rule 45 Limited to Questions of Law — A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 is limited to questions of law. A question of law arises when the doubt concerns what the law is on a certain set of facts; a question of fact exists when the doubt concerns the truth or falsehood of alleged facts. The Court's review is limited to errors of law committed by the appellate court, not those of the trial court. The Court held that whether signatures on a document are forged is a question of fact beyond the scope of Rule 45 review.

• "Questions of fact, which would require a re-evaluation of the evidence, are inappropriate under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. The jurisdiction of the Court under Rule 45, Section 1 is limited only to errors of law as the Court is not a trier of facts." — This passage states the ratio decidendi on the jurisdictional ground for denying the petition, defining the boundary between questions of law and fact under Rule 45.
• "To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract." — This passage articulates the evidentiary standard required to overcome the presumption of authenticity and due execution of notarized documents, a formulation frequently cited in subsequent jurisprudence.
• "As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery." — This passage states the canonical formulation of the burden of proving forgery, a doctrine central to the Court's analysis of petitioners' failure of proof.
• "Indeed, it is settled that when the factual findings of the trial court are confirmed by the Court of Appeals, said facts are final and conclusive on this Court, unless the same are not supported by the evidence on record." — This passage states the rule on the finality of concurrent factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals, which precluded the Supreme Court from re-evaluating the evidence.

• Miro vs. Vda. de Erederos, 721 Phil. 772 (2013) — Followed for the principle that a Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law and that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts; the Court's review is confined to errors of law committed by the appellate court.
• Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato, 750 Phil. 846 (2015) — Followed for the rule that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, with the burden on the party alleging forgery.
• People vs. Regaspi, 768 Phil. 593 (2015) — Followed for the principle that the trial court's assessment of witness credibility deserves great weight and is even conclusive and binding, especially when sustained by the Court of Appeals.
• Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Leobrera, 461 Phil. 461 (2003) — Followed for the rule that factual findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are final and conclusive upon the Supreme Court unless unsupported by evidence or contrary to the trial court's findings.
• Ambray vs. Tsourous, G.R. No. 209264, July 5, 2016 — Followed for the presumption of authenticity and due execution attaching to duly notarized contracts.
• Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Co., Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 482 SCRA 164 (2006) — Followed for the principle that one who disavows the authenticity of his signature on a public document bears the responsibility to present evidence, and that mere disclaimer is insufficient without corroborating witnesses or an expert witness.

• 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. Applied to hold that the issue of whether signatures on the Deed of Absolute Sale are forgeries is a question of fact beyond the Court's jurisdiction under Rule 45.
• Rule 132, Section 22, Rules of Court — Provides that the handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting. Applied to credit the testimony of Carlos Vinarao, the instrumental witness who personally saw Bernardino and Rogelia sign the deed before the notary public.

Sereno, C.J. (Chairperson), Del Castillo, and Jardeleza, JJ., concur. Tijam, J., on official leave.