HEIRS OF DANIEL AMBID AND MATILDE ROMAY REPRESENTED BY PATERNO AMBID, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLEES, VS. HEIRS OF BIENVENIDO LIM AND MAMERTA BARDENAS, DEFENDANTS, VS. N…

Heirs of Ambid versus Heirs of Lim

The Case

This is a case about a homestead that changed hands, a deed of sale that was later attacked as a forgery, and the heavy burden that rests on the party who cries forgery. The heirs of Daniel Ambid and Matilde Romay sued the heirs of Bienvenido Lim and Mamerta Bardenas to declare a deed of sale void, annul the title, and recover the land. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules every examinee must know: a notarized deed enjoys the presumption of regularity, forgery is never presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff who alleges the falsity. It also shows how a death certificate and a later notarized mortgage can quietly destroy a forgery theory.

Procedural History

The heirs of the Ambid spouses, through their attorney-in-fact Paterno Ambid, filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, Branch 23, for declaration of nullity of deed of sale, annulment of title, reconveyance, recovery of possession, delivery of the owner's copy of title, accounting and damages with preliminary prohibitory injunction. The complaint was amended twice. After trial on the merits, the Regional Trial Court rendered a decision in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the defendants to reconvey portions of the lot and to pay damages, documentation and segregation expenses, and costs. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, assigning as errors the order to reconvey, the award of damages, and the failure to find that the claim had long been barred by prescription and laches. The Supreme Court resolved the appeal on the merits.

Facts

Daniel Ambid applied for a homestead patent over Lot Number 211, located at Buluan, Tulunan, Cotabato, containing about ten hectares. He filed the application in January 1948. In January 1955 he transferred his homestead rights to Braulio Catedral for 500 pesos, but the Bureau of Lands never approved the transfer. The patent was therefore approved and Original Certificate of Title Number V-8800 was issued in May 1956 in the name of Daniel, not Braulio. In May 1961 Daniel borrowed 1,700 pesos from the Development Bank of the Philippines, signing a promissory note together with his wife Matilde Romay Ambid, and securing the loan with a mortgage on the land.

In May 1968 the spouses Daniel and Matilde executed a deed of sale over the land in favor of Bienvenido Lim for 15,000 pesos. Transfer Certificate of Title Number T-49020 was issued in the name of Bienvenido, married to Mamerta Bardenas Lim. Bienvenido died intestate in October 1977, and his widow Mamerta executed an affidavit of adjudication awarding the entire lot to herself. She then sold five hectares to Braulio Catedral in June 1980, and later sold a portion to Elpidio Buendicho under a deed of sale with assumption of mortgage; Elpidio paid the bank loan in full, totalling 25,000 pesos, and the mortgage was cancelled. Mamerta conveyed two more hectares to Elpidio after he paid an additional 30,000 pesos, sold about 20,000 square meters to the spouses Leonardo Castor and Norma Nazareno, and Braulio in turn sold about one hectare to Julian Macabales. Through all these sales, the title in the name of Bienvenido Lim was never cancelled.

In November 2001 the Ambid heirs sued. They alleged that Daniel's signature on the 1968 deed was forged and that Matilde's signature was procured through fraud, because Matilde had supposedly died in August 1948, twenty years before the sale. They argued that the land had become an inheritance in 1948, that their consent as heirs should have been secured, and that the sale illegally cut off their legitime. The defendants answered that the claim had long been extinguished by prescription and laches, that the deed came from the custody of the Register of Deeds and so needed no proof of genuineness, and that the complaint stated no cause of action. The trial court ruled for the plaintiffs, relying on the testimony of Roberto Claud, who said he made Matilde's coffin, and of Berlita Datuon, that Matilde died in August 1948. It presumed a conjugal partnership of gains, held that Daniel could lawfully dispose of only about 6.667 hectares, and ordered reconveyance of 3.3 hectares and payment of 20,000 pesos in damages.

Issues

• Whether or not the trial court erred in finding that the deed of sale was void on the ground of forgery.
• Whether or not the trial court erred in ordering the reconveyance of the portions of the lot sold to the defendants in favor of the plaintiffs.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statute; it applies settled evidentiary rules. The governing principle on notarized documents is stated by the Court as follows:

As a public document, the subject Deed of Absolute Sale has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict it, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld.

This rule bears on the case because the deed of sale was notarized, so the plaintiffs had to overcome its presumption of regularity with strong evidence.

On forgery, the Court states the rule thus:

We should also be mindful that as a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery. Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence.

This bears on the case because the plaintiffs alleged forgery but offered no handwriting examination and no comparison of signatures.

On the burden of proof in civil cases, the Court states:

In civil cases, the specific rule as to the burden of proof is that the plaintiff has the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which are denied by the answer.

This bears on the case because the plaintiffs, not the defendants, had to prove that the deed was false.

Ruling

The appeal is meritorious. On the first issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in finding the deed of sale void. The plaintiffs alleged that Matilde's signature was forged because she had died in August 1948, but they presented no certificate of death, excusing themselves on the ground that it was difficult to secure one in Kidapawan at that time. The trial court relied solely on the testimonies of Roberto Claud and Berlita Datuon. The Court held that this was not enough. A notarized deed carries the presumption of regularity, which may be rebutted only by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. Forgery must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the best evidence of a forged signature is the instrument itself, established by comparing the false signature with the genuine one. Here the trial court never made an independent examination of the questioned signatures, never compared them with other documents bearing Matilde's signature, and no handwriting expert was ever asked to examine them.

Worse for the plaintiffs, the records showed the contrary. The notarized mortgage of May 1961 and the promissory note of the same date were both signed by Matilde, and those signatures were never shown to be forgeries. The plaintiffs themselves presented Daniel's death certificate, which showed his status as married, not widowed, when he died in November 1995. A duly registered death certificate is a public document whose entries are presumed correct unless positive evidence establishes otherwise. Taken together, these facts did not convincingly prove that Matilde died as early as 1948. The plaintiffs therefore failed to overthrow the presumption of validity of the deed of sale, and the deed, together with the title derived from it, must be accorded respect and remain undisturbed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the trial court erred in ordering reconveyance. Since the deed of sale was valid, Bienvenido Lim's transfer of the title in his name was pursuant to that valid deed. In the same vein, the defendants' possession of the lot was pursuant to the deeds of sale executed by Mamerta Bardenas Lim in their favor. With the deed upheld, there was no basis to reconvey the portions sold, and no basis for the award of damages, documentation and segregation expenses, and costs.

Doctrine

A notarized deed of sale is a public document that carries the presumption of regularity and of due execution. To contradict it, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document must be upheld. The burden of proof to overcome the presumption of due execution of a notarial document lies on the one contesting it.

Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. The burden of proof rests on the party alleging forgery, and a mere allegation of forgery is not evidence. The best evidence of a forged signature is the instrument itself, and the fact of forgery may be established by comparing the allegedly false signature with the authentic one. While handwriting experts are not mandatory, they are usually helpful.

In civil cases, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the material allegations of the complaint which are denied by the answer. If the plaintiff fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts on which the claim is based, the defendant is under no obligation to prove his defense.

A duly registered death certificate is a public document, and the entries found in it are presumed correct unless the party contesting their accuracy produces positive evidence establishing otherwise.

Disposition

The appeal was granted, the decision of the Regional Trial Court was reversed and set aside, and the complaint of the plaintiffs was dismissed for lack of merit.

Remember This

Memorize this line: forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden lies on the party alleging it. Examiners use this case to test the presumption of regularity of notarized deeds, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the rule that a registered death certificate is presumed correct.