G.R. No. 191278, March 29, 2023

When a local government unit illegally takes private property for public use (like a road) based on a forged document, and the property cannot be returned, the remedy is payment of just compensation, not demolition of the public infrastructure.

The respondent owned a parcel of land in Sta. Maria, Bulacan. The petitioner municipality, without the respondent's consent, constructed a road on a portion of this land. The municipality's defense was a notarized Deed of Donation purportedly executed by the respondent in favor of the local barangay, which would have transferred ownership of the land.

• Filed in RTC (Civil Case No. 766-M-2002).
• RTC dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of the notarized Deed of Donation.
• Respondent appealed to the CA.
• CA reversed the RTC, found the deed was forged, and ordered the road demolished and monthly rentals paid.
• Petitioners elevated the case to the SC via a Rule 45 Petition for Review on Certiorari.

• Respondent Carlos Buenaventura owned a 17,102 sqm parcel of land covered by TCT No. T-61427(M).
• In 2001-2002, petitioners constructed a road on approximately 998.75 sqm of the property without the respondent's knowledge or consent.
• Upon discovery, the respondent demanded removal of the road.
• Negotiations led to a draft MOA where petitioners would use the land until 2004 and then restore it. The Sangguniang Bayan refused to approve the MOA (Kapasiyahan Bilang 2002-112).
• Petitioners claimed the road was built on land covered by a Deed of Donation from the respondent to Barangay Guyong.
• The respondent filed a complaint for sum of money and damages.

• The complaint stated no cause of action because the subject land belonged to Barangay Guyong by virtue of a notarized Deed of Donation.
• A notarized document is a public document, presumed valid until annulled in a separate proceeding.
• The burden of proving the deed was forged lies with the respondent, not the petitioners.
• The municipality acted in good faith by relying on the notarized deed.

• His signature on the Deed of Donation was a forgery.
• The petitioners failed to prove the donated land was the same parcel where the road was built.
• The municipality's act of taking and constructing the road without his consent was illegal, entitling him to compensation and damages.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  1. Whether the notarized Deed of Donation is valid and sufficient to justify the petitioners' construction on the property.
  2. Whether the petitioner municipality is liable to pay rentals/just compensation and damages.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  1. No. The Deed of Donation is invalid because the respondent's signature was forged. Forgery must be proven by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden lies with the party alleging it (the respondent). The SC conducted its own visual comparison of signatures and agreed with the CA that the respondent's signature on the deed was dissimilar to his undisputed signatures. The municipality presented no countervailing evidence.
  2. Yes, but the remedy is modified. The SC affirmed the CA's finding of illegal taking but modified the award. Since a road had already been constructed, returning the property (demolition) was no longer feasible and would harm public interest. Therefore, the proper remedy is payment of just compensation reckoned from the time of taking (April 11, 2002). The award of monthly rentals was deleted. The SC also awarded exemplary damages (P300,000) due to the illegal taking and attorney's fees (P75,000).

• Burden of Proof in Forgery — The party alleging forgery bears the burden of proving it by preponderance of evidence. Forgery cannot be presumed.
• Proof of Forgery — Can be established by visual comparison of signatures. The opinion of handwriting experts is not conclusive; the court must make its own independent examination.
• Just Compensation for Illegal Taking — When a government entity illegally takes private property for public use and its return is no longer feasible, the constitutional guarantee of just compensation applies. The measure is the fair market value at the time of taking.
• Exemplary Damages — May be awarded when the taking of property is done in an illegal or arbitrary manner, to set an example for the public good.

• "A simple visual examination and comparison of the specimen signatures... clearly reveals that they are not one in the same and have been affixed by different persons." — On the finding of forgery.
• "Recovery of possession may no longer be had as the return of the subject property is no longer feasible as a road has already been constructed thereon. Thus, in the higher interest of justice... payment of just compensation is warranted." — On the shift from demolition to just compensation.

• Heirs of Spouses Mariano, et al. v. City of Naga — Cited as a "fairly similar case" where the SC ordered payment of just compensation instead of demolition when a road had been built on illegally taken land.
• Gepulle-Garbo v. Sps. Garabato — Cited for the rules on proving forgery: burden of proof, standard of evidence, and the court's duty to make an independent signature examination.
• Philippine Savings Bank v. Sakata — Cited for the general rule that petitions for review are limited to questions of law, with exceptions (like conflicting factual findings between the CA and RTC).
• Medina v. Mayor Assistio, Jr. — Cited as an exception allowing the SC to review factual findings when the CA and RTC have conflicting conclusions.

• Article 449, New Civil Code — (Cited by the CA) Provides that one who builds, plants, or sows on land of another in bad faith loses what is built, planted, or sown without right to indemnity.
• Article 2208, New Civil Code — Allows for the award of attorney's fees in cases where the court deems it just and equitable, such as when the defendant's act has compelled the plaintiff to litigate.
• Rule 45, Rules of Court — Governs appeals by certiorari to the Supreme Court, generally limited to questions of law.