DOMINGO v. DOMINGO GR No.
GR No. 150897 ground that the parties failed to show that the specimen signatures were in fact
Apr 11 2005 Quisumbing, J.
TOPIC IN SYLLABUS: Opinion Rule
SUMMARY: Petitioner discovered that his father sold the subject property
wherein he later on resided in, to his other siblings. He alleged that their father’s
signature was forged and had it examined by the PC-INP, which concluded that
the DoS signature and the specimen signatures were written by 2 people. NBI,
however, concluded that the signatures were written by one and the same person.
All of the cases he filed were dismissed. He now questions said dismissals, averring
that the lower courts erred in not considering the PC-INP report as reliable. SC
denied his petition.
DOCTRINE: Courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value
to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not
mandatory.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: Rule 45 petition of CA Decision affirming RTC
which dismissed the case.
FACTS:
Bruno Domingo was a registered owner of a house and lot in Project 4, QC. In Dec.
1970, he needed money for his medical expenses so he sold the property. He signed
a DoS conveying the same to 4 of his children, the respondents, for 10k. DoS was
witnessed by 2 people and notarized. Jose, one of the respondents, then brought the
Deed to the RD and had the previous TCT cancelled and a new one issued in
respondents’ names. Bruno died in Apr 6, 1975.
In 1981, petitioner (sibling of respondents), who was by then residing on the
property, received a notice from the QC Hall, declaring him a squatter and directing
him to demolish his shanty.
In 1986, he learned of the existence of the DoS when an ejectment suit was filed
against him. Upon counsel’s advice, he had the PC-INP (now PNP), compare Bruno’s
signature on the deed against other specimen signatures of his father. The police
issued 2 reports, concluding that the DoS signature and standard signatures were
written by 2 different persons. Thus, he filed a complaint for forgery and falsification
against his siblings and the notary public in QC.
NBI examined the documents and concluded that the DoS signature and the
specimen were written by one and the same person. Prosecutor dismissed the
complaint. Petitioner appealed to DoJ but latter affirmed dismissal. A similar
complaint was filed before the prosecutor of Manila and was likewise dismissed.
Petitioner then instituted a civil case for declaration of nullity of DoS, reconveyance,
and cancellation of TCT, alleging that the DOS signature was forged. RTC
dismissed. It disregarded the conflicting reports of the PC-INP and the NBI on the
Page 1 of 1
Bruno’s . Thus, he appealed to the CA.
In 2000, he filed a MNT based on newly discovered evidence of a letter signed by
Bruno requesting from PHHC permission to mortgage the property. He also filed a
supplemental MNT asking authority to put up a sari-sari store therein. Motions
denied. CA also dismissed the case.
ISSUE(S): WoN lower courts erred in disregarding PC-INP’s report – NO.
HELD: The genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the following: (1) A
witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument; (2) A witness familiar
with such handwriting and who can give such opinion being an exception to the
opinion rule; (3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and
admitted genuine specimen thereof; and (4) Expert evidence.
The law makes neither preference nor distinction among and between the different
means stated in proving the handwriting of a person. Likewise, the courts are not
bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting
experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.
CA disregarded the PC-INP’s report because the specimen used by the latter
preceded that questioned DoS signature by more than 8 years. SC agreed with the
CA, stating that the passage of time and a person’s increase in age may have decisive
influence in his handwriting characteristics. Thus, order to bring about an accurate
comparison and analysis, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in
point of time to the suspected signature.
Moreover, the testimonies of the witnesses to the effect that they saw Bruno affixing
his signature to the DoS were unrebutted. Genuineness of a handwriting may be
proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by anyone who actually saw the person write or
affix his signature on a document.
Finally, the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in the present case is a notarized
document. Being a public document, it s prima facie evidence of the facts therein
expressed. It has the presumption of regularity in its favor and to contradict all these,
evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.