CORAZON APELO JOINED BY HER HUSBAND MANUEL APELO, PLAINTIFFS-APPELLANTS, VS. SPOUSES BUEN PEDREGOSA, AND NORA PEDREGOSA, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES.

This is an appeal filed under Rule 41 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, seeking to reverse and set aside the Decision^[1] dated September 30, 2008, of the Regional Trial Court, 6^th Judicial Region, Branch 15, Roxas City, in Civil Case No. V-104-04 directing the dismissal of the Complaint for Declaration of Nullity of deed of absolute sale of a parcel of land, Deed of Adjudication with Absolute Sale, Tax Declaration No. 85-4676^[2] and damages and ordering plaintiffs-appellants to pay defendants-appellees moral damages, actual damages and attorney’s fees.

THE FACTS

The subject property is a parcel of land designated as Lot No. 713-B of the Ivisan Cadastre, Ivisan, Capiz consisting of 18,446.35 square meters under Tax Declaration No. 85-4676 in the name of defendants-appellees.

Plaintiffs-appellants spouses Manuel and Corazon Apelo are the parents of defendant-appellee Nora Apelo Pedregoza married to Buen Pedregoza. Plaintiffs-appellants and their children Rogero and Nicolas Apelo are in actual possession of the subject lot where their houses are built.

Plaintiff-appellant Corazon Apelo acquired ownership of Lot 713 through inheritance from her mother, Rosario Ulla who acquired the same from her own mother, Felicidad Berame. She owns one-third of Lot 713 while her brother and sister, namely, Pedro Valcarcel and Merced Valcarcel own one-third share each. With her siblings now deceased, their children now own said shares.

Years ago, the heirs of Pedro Valcarcel sold their one-third share to Merced Valcarcel, which makes the heirs of the latter now owners of two-third of the subject land. Subsequently, Lot 713 was subdivided into two parts – Lot 713-A and Lot 173-B. Lot 713-A belongs to the heirs of Merced Valcarcel while Lot 713-B belongs to plaintiff-appellant Corazon Apelo.

Sometime in August, 2004, plaintiff-appellants discovered that defendants-appellees spouses simulated a document entitled Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land dated January 15, 1978 whereby they made it appear that plaintiff-appellant Corazon Apelo sold, ceded and conveyed by way of absolute sale all her rights, interests consisting of one-third portion to defendant-appellee Buen Pedregoza, his heirs and successors-in-interest. Around the same time, plaintiff-appellants also found out that another document, a Deed of Adjudication with absolute sale dated June 25, 2004 was also falsified to make it appear that plaintiff-appellant Corazon without the conformity of her husband, sold and conveyed by way of absolute sale unto defendant-appellee Buen Pedregoza married to Nora Pedregoza her entire share in Lot 713-B. Plaintiff-appellants likewise discovered that defendants-appellees caused to be declared for taxation purposes, Tax Declaration No. 05-0317 covering Lot 713-B in the name of Buen Pedregoza.

To protect her interest over Lot 713-B, plaintiff-appellant Corazon filed with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Capiz a Notice of Adverse Claim on September 24, 2004. Plaintiffs-appellants and their children Roger and Nicolas are in actual occupation of the property where they built their houses thereon.

On November 10, 2004, plaintiffs-appellants filed a Complaint^[3] for Declaration of Nullity of deed of absolute sale of a parcel of land, Deed of Adjudication with Absolute Sale, Tax Declaration No. 85-4676 and damages against defendants-appellees with the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 15, Roxas City in Civil Case No. V-104-04. In their complaint, plaintiffs-appellants alleged that they have been in open and continuous possession over said property from time immemorial and that defendants-appellees have not possessed the same even for a single day. Neither did defendants-appellees exercise any right of ownership thereon. Likewise, plaintiffs-appellants claimed that they did not receive the purchase price as consideration for the sale of the subject lot as stated in the Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land. Plaintiffs-appellants asseverated that the Deed of Absolute Sale, as well as the Deed of Adjudication with Absolute Sale were forgeries since they did not affix their signatures thereto. Because of the unlawful acts of the defendants-appellees, plaintiffs-appellants prayed for the award of moral damages, actual damages and attorney’s fees as well as litigation expenses. Plaintiffs-appellants asked for the declaration of the nullity of the Deed^[4] of Absolute Sale dated January 15, 1978, Deed^[5] of Adjudication with Absolute Sale dated June 25, 2004 and Tax Declaration^[6] No. 05-317.^[7]

Defendants-appellees filed their Answer^[8] alleging that Corazon Apelo was then owner of one-third of Lot 713 until it was sold to them on January 15, 1978 via Deed of Absolute Sale. Defendants-appellees maintained that the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid and legal being a public document and duly notarized. Likewise, they claimed that the Deed of Adjudication with absolute sale is also valid and legal being voluntarily signed by the parties and notarized. Defendants-appellees argued that the non-conformity of Manuel Apelo in the second deed is not material because said deed merely confirms the prior sale between the parties. According to defendants-appellees, plaintiffs-appellants and defendants-appellees originally stayed together in one house in Loctugan, Roxas City but in 1980, after their purchase of the subject lot, the plaintiffs-appellants constructed their own house on Lot 713-B. From that time until the present, defendants-appellees have cultivated the land, planted trees thereon and other agricultural products on the vacant portion of the land. Defendants-appellees also contended that Corazon Apelo signed four times on the notarized documents while Manuel Apelo signed twice thereon showing clearly that plaintiffs-appellants received the consideration for the sale of the subject lot.

In their counter-claim, defendants-appellees averred that they are entitled to damages because of the frivolous suit filed against them. They also asseverated that plaintiffs-appellants have no cause of action against them warranting the dismissal of the instant complaint. Defendants-appellees thus prayed for the award of actual and moral damages, as well as attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.

Trial ensued. Both parties presented their respective documentary and testamentary evidence. For the plaintiffs-appellants, both of them testified, as well as Atty. Blas Nolasco, Clerk of Court, RTC, Capiz and Miguel Diaz, Jr. of the Register of Deeds, Capiz. On the other hand, both defendants-appellees testified in their favor.

On September 30, 2008, the Regional Trial Court, Sixth Judicial Region, Branch 15, Roxas City rendered a Decision^[9] against plaintiffs-appellants, the dispositive portion whereof reads as follows:

“WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, Judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against the plaintiffs.

1. Dismissing the complaint.
2. Ordering the plaintiffs to pay defendants damages the latter prayed for in the counterclaim to wit:

(a) P50,000.00 as moral damages.
(b) P20,000.00 as actual or compensatory damages
© P20,000.00 as attorney’s fees.

Costs against plaintiffs.

SO ORDERED.”

Aggrieved, plaintiffs-appellants come to this Court, assigning the following errors, to wit:

“I.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT DESPITE CLEAR AND CONVINCING PROOF THAT APPELLANTS’ SIGNATURES ON EXHIBITS “S’ AND “C” WERE FALSIFIED; and

II.

THE COURT A QUO ERRED IN AWARDING DAMAGES IN FAVOR OF THE APPELLEES.”

OUR RULING

I.

Validity of Deed of Absolute Sale of a parcel of land and Deed of Adjudication with absolute sale

It is the submission of plaintiffs-appellants that the court a quo erred in holding that the assailed documents – Deed of Absolute Sale and Deed of Adjudication with absolute sale, being notarial documents enjoy the presumption of regularity in their execution and thus, their validity should be upheld. Plaintiffs-appellants point out that the signatures embodied on said documents are not theirs or were falsified. They vehemently deny appearing before the notary public who notarized said documents. Plaintiffs-appellants aver that the established rule is that the person who has in his possession the falsified documents and made use of the same is the author of the forgery or falsification. It was also established by evidence that defendants-appellees are the possessors of the falsified documents. Relying on People vs Viloria, 1 Phil 682, plaintiffs-appellants posit that the testimony of an expert witness is not indispensable in determining the authenticity or genuineness of a person’s signature on a document and that it is sufficient that the person whose signature purportedly appears thereon deny under oath his signature, said denial being prima facie evidence of falsification. Thus, plaintiffs-appellants assert that the presumption that official acts of a notary public have been properly performed applies only when there is no evidence to the contrary. However, when there is evidence to the contrary such as denial in open court, the presumption of regularity in the performance of official duties of a notary public does not apply. Otherwise stated, plaintiffs-appellants insist that their open court testimonies denying the signatures on the subject documents as theirs and non-appearance before the notary public are affirmative evidence of forgery and in effect, the presumption of regularity of official acts of a notary public cannot apply in this case.

Plaintiffs-appellants’ argument is bereft of merit.

The main issue for resolution in this case is the validity of the assailed Deed of Absolute Sale of a portion of a parcel of land dated January 15, 1978 as well as the Deed of Adjudication with absolute sale dated June 25, 2004, involving Lot 713-B. Also assailed is the Tax Declaration No. 05-0317 covering the same lot. Plaintiffs-apppellants deny that they executed the assailed documents and that the signatures affixed thereon are not theirs.

Records show that both documents are public documents, being notarized by notaries public. “Notarization of a private document converts it into a public instrument making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. A notarial document is by law entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.”^[10] “As public documents, these are prima facie evidence of the facts therein expressed and being notarized documents, these have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to overcome the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant; otherwise the document should be upheld.^[11] Plaintiffs-appellants have failed to show that such contradictory evidence exists in this case.

In Aznar Brothers Realty vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 128102, March 7, 2000, the Supreme Court shed light on this matter, thus:

xxx It is worthy to note that the Extrajudicial Partition with Deed of Absolute Sale is a notarized document. As such, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and it carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It is admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. He who denies its due execution has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the Acknowledgment he never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be his voluntary act. It must also be stressed that whoever alleges forgery has the burden of proving the same. Forgery cannot be presumed but should be proved by clear and convincing evidence. Private respondents failed to discharge this burden of proof; hence, the presumption in favor of the questioned deed stands. (underscoring ours)

Plaintiffs-appellants assert that the signatures on the assailed documents are forgeries. We reject such claim. It bears stressing that forgery is not presumed. Forgery must be proved with clear and convincing evidence.^[12] Whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same.^[13]

Under the Rules of Court, 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 his opinion thereon, 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.

In the case at bar, it appears that plaintiffs-appellants failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove that these documents are forgeries. They merely deny the validity of said documents and therefore heavily rely on bare, self-serving allegations. Plaintiff-appellant Manuel testified that by merely comparing his alleged genuine signature in his voter’s certificate with his purported signature in the alleged Deed of Absolute Sale, the glaring dissimilarities can be readily seen. He asserts that this disparity proves that he did not sign said document. The court a quo correctly noted that plaintiffs-appellants did not exert their best efforts to have the original Deed of Absolute Sale and Deed of Adjudication presented in court so that these could be examined by experts. In short, plaintiffs-appellants failed to discharge their burden of proving forgery.

We adopt the findings of the court a quo on this score, thus:

“Except from the bare denials that defendants ever set a foot on the subject property, the plaintiffs do not have concrete evidence to support such denial. Had defendants not purchased the property from them validly as embodied in Exh “B” (Exh. “1” for defendants) the nagging question on why the plaintiffs have not produced any piece of document showing that they ever have the subject property declared for taxation purposes in their names or at least in the name of Corazon Apelo or a single receipt from the municipal treasurer of the place showing that plaintiffs once upon a time has paid realty tax thereon remains and unavoidably cast doubt on the veracity of their claims. Twenty-four long years of possessing the property and paying its taxes after having declared the same in their names without the plaintiffs questioning such or without any plausible explanation given by plaintiffs on the reason why they never paid a single tax on the property during this long long period of time, would render nugatory plaintiffs’ claim of ownership of the property or their alleged lack of knowledge of the means by which defendant acquired ownership of or title thereto, much less, defendants’ alleged fictitious acquisition thereof.”

Indeed, there is no competent proof that plaintiffs-appellants declared the land in their name for taxation purposes or paid its taxes due thereon. While tax receipts and declarations are not incontrovertible evidence of ownership, they constitute, at the least, proof that the holder has a claim of title over the property. The voluntary declaration of a piece of property for taxation purposes not only manifests one’s sincere and honest desire to obtain title to the property, but also announces an adverse claim against the State and all other interested parties with an intention to contribute needed revenues to the government. Such an act strengthens one’s bona fide claim of acquisition of ownership.^[14] Defendants-appellees, on the other hand, presented tax declarations including Tax Declaration No. 85-4867 in Buen Pedrogoza’s name. They also presented realty tax receipts^[15] covering the years 1986 to 2004, all paid by Buen Pedregoza. These pieces of documentary evidence bolsters defendants-appellees’ assertion that they have been in possession of the subject property since 1978 after the execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale involving Lot No. 713-B was executed in their favor until 2004 when their occupation was interrupted by plaintiffs-appellants’ harassment. Defendants-appellees’ claim of harassment was confirmed by the Certification^[16] issued by the Office of the Punong Barangay of Barangay Ilaya-Ivisan as well as the Certification^[17] issued by the Ivisan Police Station. Defendants-appellees requested for police assistance because the trees on their property were illegally cut down by Nicolas Apelo, Nora’s sibling and their house was ransacked as well.

Hence, mere denials of plaintiffs-appellants will not suffice to overcome the positive value of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Deed of Adjudication with absolute sale, which are notarized documents, having in their favor the presumption of regularity, and carry the evidentiary weight conferred upon with respect to their due execution.^[18]

Granting arguendo there was resort to handwriting experts, it should be remembered that even with such findings, 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.^[19] Besides, the law makes no preference, much less distinction among and between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person.

To determine forgery, it was held in Cesar vs. Sandiganbayan G.R. Nos. 54719-50, 17 January 1985 (quoting Osborn, The Problem of Proof) that: “The process of identification, therefore, must include the determination of the extent, kind, and significance of this resemblance as well as of the variation. It then becomes necessary to determine whether the variation is due to the operation of a different personality, or is only the expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer. It is also necessary to decide whether the resemblance is the result of a more or less skillful imitation, or is the habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing. When these two questions are correctly answered the whole problem of identification is solved.”

After comparing the questioned signature on the subject Deeds with the other signatures of plaintiffs-appellants affixed on other documents, we affirm the conclusion of the court a quo that there is no forgery in the instant case. Indeed, the best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument itself showing the alleged forgeries. The fact of forgery can be established by comparing the allegedly false signatures with the authentic or genuine one.^[20] This was exactly what we did.

We found that the basis presented by the plaintiffs-appellants was inadequate to sustain their allegation of forgery. They would have us believe that they did not affix their signatures on the assailed deeds. But after an examination of Manuel Apelo’s signature on his Voter’s affidavit and Corazon Apelo’s signature on her Voter Registration Record, we compared such signatures with their purported signatures affixed on the assailed documents. Their being no other admitted specimen of their genuine signatures, we cannot readily conclude that the signatures appearing on the assailed documents are already forgeries.

We are further guided by Domingo vs Domingo, GR No. 150897, April 11, 2005, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that mere variance of signatures is not considered conclusive proof that the same is forged, thus:

The passage of time and a person’s increase in age may have decisive influence in his handwriting characteristics. Thus, in 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. As correctly found by the appellate court, the examination conducted by the PC-INP Crime Laboratory did not conform to the foregoing standard. Recall that in the case, the signatures analyzed by the police experts were on documents executed several years apart. A signature affixed in 1958 or in 1962 may involve characteristics different from those borne by a signature affixed in 1970.

Hence, the court a quo cannot be faulted for not resorting to handwriting experts to determine forgery in the subject documents. In fact, the court can refuse to give probative weight to the NBI findings on the handwritings. To reiterate, mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged.^[21]

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. Here, plaintiffs-appellants have not presented any witness to buttress their claim that they did not sign the assailed documents considering the burden of forgery falls on them. Verily, plaintiffs-appellants have also not shown any reason why the ruling made by the trial court on the credibility of defendants-appellees’ witnesses should be disturbed by us. Findings by the trial court as to the credibility of witnesses are accorded the greatest respect, and even finality by appellate courts, since the former is in a better position to observe their demeanor as well as their deportment and manner of testifying during the trial.

Equally important to the main issue before us, it should be stressed that the subject Deed of Absolute Sale in question possesses all the essential requisites for the validity of a contract which is enumerated by Article 1318 of the New Civil Code, to wit:

“Article 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:

(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.”

There are two types of void contracts: (1) those where one of the essential requisites of a valid contract as provided for by Article 1318 of the Civil Code is totally wanting; and (2) those declared to be so under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. conveyances by virtue of a forged signature are void ab initio. The absence of the essential requisites of consent and cause or consideration in these cases renders the contract inexistent. Here, all the requisites have been established such that we affirm the court a quo’s conclusion finding the subject Deed of Absolute Sale valid.

II.

Propriety of the award of Damages and attorney’s fees

Plaintiffs-appellants questioned the award of actual or compensatory damages, moral damages and attorney’s fees in favor of defendants-appellees. They asseverate that defendants-appellees failed to prove the existence of bad faith on their part in filing the instant complaint. They aver that defendant-appellee Buen Pedregoza’s statement that he suffered sleepless nights was so sweeping, bare and completely lacking in details and substance.

We cannot agree.

Our basic law tells us that to recover damages there must be pleading and proof of actual damages suffered.^[22] As the High Court explained in Viron Transportation Co., Inc. v. Delos Santos G.R. No. 138296, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 509, 519, citing Marina Properties Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125447, August 14, 1998, 294 SCRA 273: “Actual damages to be recoverable, must not only be capable of proof, but must actually be proved with a reasonable degree of certainty. Courts cannot simply rely on speculation, conjecture or guesswork in determining the fact and amount of damages To justify an award of actual damages there must be competent proof of the actual mount of loss, credence can be given only to claims which are duly supported by receipts.”

In the case at bar, defendants-appellees did not submit any receipt to support their claim for actual damages to prove the monetary value of the alleged damage caused to them. Since we have no basis with which to assess, with certainty, the actual or compensatory damages counter-claimed by defendants-appellees, the award of such damages should be deleted.^[23] We cannot award actual damages in defendants-appellees’ favor for the alleged time lost in the practice of their profession in attending to the rigors of this trial or the damages they sustained because of the public ridicule they faced because of the instant case filed against them.

We agree, however, that there is sufficient basis for the award of moral damages in favor of defendants-appellees. Moral damages are awarded where the claimant experienced physical suffering, mental anguish, fright, serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar injury as a result of the act complained of.^[24] Mere allegation is not proof. It is elementary that to recover moral damages, there must be pleading and proof of moral suffering, mental anguish, fright and the like.^[25] Defendants-appellees are public school teachers. Buen Pedregoza, a public school principal, was not only made a party defendant in this complaint but he was charged administratively and criminally before the Prosecutor’s Office in Roxas City for Falsification of public documents. The trial court believed defendant-appellee Buen Pedregoza when he testified that he suffered stress, serious anxiety and sleepless nights because of the unfounded charges against him. We agree with the court a quo that plaintiffs-appellants’ actions against defendants-appellees were unwarranted and baseless. In fact, the criminal charge filed against him in the Fiscal’s Office was dismissed with finality. Hence, there is adequate support that moral damages have been proved.

Anent the award of attorney’s fees, we likewise sustain the same. The general rule is that attorney’s fees cannot be recovered as part of damages because of the policy that no premium should be placed on the right to litigate. They are not to be awarded every time a party wins a suit. The power of the court to award attorney’s fees under Article 2208 demands factual, legal, and equitable justification. Even when a claimant is compelled to litigate with third persons or to incur expenses to protect his rights, still, attorney’s fees may not be awarded where no sufficient showing of bad faith could be reflected in a party’s persistence in a case other than an erroneous conviction of the righteousness of his cause.^[26]

WHEREFORE, the appeal is DENIED. The Decision dated September 30, 2008, of the Regional Trial Court, 6^th Judicial Region, Branch 15, Roxas City, in Civil Case No. V-104-04 is AFFIRMED with MODIFICATION to state that the award of actual damages is deleted. The award of moral damages and attorney’s fees is sustained.

Costs against plaintiffs-appellants.

SO ORDERED.

Abella Maxino, and Francisco, JJ., concur.

---

^[1] Records, p. 54

^[2] Tax Declaration stated in the Title of the Complaint

^[3] Records, p. 1

^[4] Records, p. 9

^[5] Records, p. 10

^[6] Records, p. 12

^[7] Tax Declaration to be nullified as prayed for in the Complaint

^[8] Records, p. 20

^[9] Records, p. 195

^[10] Soriano vs Basco, AC No. 6648, September 21, 2005

^[11] Bernardo vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 107791, May 12, 2000

^[12] Spouses Salonga vs Spouses Concepcion, GR No. 151333, September 20, 2005

^[13] Distajo vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 112954, August 25, 2000

^[14] Republic vs Alconaba, GR No. 155012, April 14, 2004.

^[15] Folder of Exhibits of Defendants-appellees, pp. 9-29

^[16] Folder of Exhibits of Defendants-appellees, p. 4.

^[17] Folder of Exhibits of Defndants-appellees, p. 5.

^[18] JN Devt. Corp et al vs Phil. Export and Foreign Loan Guarantee Corp., GR No. 151060 & 151311, August 31, 2005.

^[19] Domingo vs Domingo, GR No. 150897, April 11, 2005.

^[20] Jimenez vs Commission of Ecumenical Mission, GR No. 140472, June 10, 2002.

^[21] Veloso vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 102737, August 21, 1996.

^[22] Canada v. All Commodities Marketing Corporation, G.R. No. 146141, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 321, 329.

^[23] Banas Jr vs Court of Appeals, GR No. 102967, February 10, 2000

^[24] Aguilar-Reyes vs Spouses Mijares, GR No. 143826, August 28, 2003

^[25] V V Soliven Realty Corp vs Ong, GR NO. 147689, January 26, 2005

^[26] Car Cool Phil vs Ushio Realty and Devt Corp, GR NO. 138088, January 23, 2006