Bare allegations

Forgery must be proven by the party alleging it; it cannot be presumed. This is the rule used in this case of Nena.

Nena and her husband Val were the registered owners of lot 19 located in a subdivision and covered by TCT No. 53412. At first Nena planned to construct her house on the lot but discontinued it for failure of her husband who was then allegedly abroad to send the necessary financial support. Instead she decided just to sell the property.

Nena then entrusted the owner’s copy of the TCT to her friend Benny who volunteered to sell the lot. Later the Title was said to have been lost. So a petition for reconstitution was filed and Nena gave Benny all the necessary documents and receipts necessary for such reconstitution. After Benny asked her to sign what she recalled was a record of exhibits, Nena said that Benny did not show up anymore.

Nena said that she then waited patiently until three years later when she visited the lot and was surprised to see the ongoing construction of a house thereon. Verification from the Register of Deeds revealed that the lost title was already reconstituted and the reconstituted Title No. 53412 had already been cancelled by virtue of a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991 signed by Nena and Val as sellers and Yolly and her minor daughter as buyers. As a consequence TCT No. 201730 was issued in the name of Yolly.

Thus Nena filed a suit for declaration of nullity of the title and re-conveyance of the lot. She claimed that she had never met nor signed any sale in favor of anybody especially since her husband was abroad at that time. So she assumed that the Deed of Sale was a forgery.

In her defense Yolly asserted that the subject lot was offered to her by Benny as the agent of the owners; that after sometime when they were already prepared to buy the lot, Benny introduced them to the supposed owners and agreed on the sale; then on May 9, 1991, Benny presented the Deed of Sale already signed by the sellers Val and Nena needing only her signature. She said she met Val who was with Benny and who received payment for the property after which the original of the TCT No. 53412 was presented to her.

At the trial, Nena did not present any proof on the forgery despite the fact that her signature on the Deed and her signature in the verification of her Complaint bear striking similarities. She did not also present a clear and convincing evidence that Val was really abroad and could not have been present at the time of the sale. So after due proceedings the RTC rendered a decision dismissing the complaint. This was affirmed by the Court of Appeals based on its findings that (1) the sale was admittedly through Nena’s agent; (2) as Nena’s agent Benny brought with him the original of the owner’s reconstituted copy of TCT 53412 and some receipts; (3) the reconstituted title was free from any liens and encumbrances; and (4) the land was unoccupied. Were the RTC and the CA correct?

Yes. A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented to overcome such legal presumption. Forgery cannot be presumed; hence it was incumbent upon Nena to prove it. Sadly Nena left the matter of the striking similarity between her signature in the Deed of Sale and in her complaint that way without introducing counteracting evidence. So it would be safe to conclude that said signatures were written by one and the same person. Nena also failed to prove that the person with whom Yolly transacted was not in fact her husband Val. Except for her insistence that he was out of the country, Nena failed to present any other convincing evidence that Val was not present at the time of the sale. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent of proof.

The sale was admittedly made with the aid of Benny, Nena’s agent, who had with him the original owner’s duplicate of the Title to the property free from liens and encumbrances. The signatures of the spouses Nena and Val, the registered owners appear on the Deed of Sale. Val met with Yolly and received payment for the property. The Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to registration, the production of the owner’s certificate of title and the instrument of conveyance. The registered owner who places in the hands of another an executed document of transfer of registered land effectively represents to a third party that the holder of such document is authorized to deal with the property (Domingo vs. Robles, G.R. 153743, March 18, 2005. 453 SCRA 812).

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]