QUINTIN B. BELGICA, PETITIONER, VS. MARILYN LEGARDE BELGICA AND ANTONIO G. ONG, RESPONDENTS.

Belgica versus Belgica

The Case

This is the case of Quintin Belgica versus Marilyn Legarde Belgica and Antonio Ong. Quintin sues his own wife and the man who bought their conjugal house and lot, asking that the sale be annulled because, he says, he never consented to it. His signature on the special power of attorney his wife used to sell the property, he insists, was forged. The case matters for two reasons. First, it fixes the boundary of a petition for review on certiorari: only questions of law may be raised, and the authenticity of a signature is a question of fact. Second, it tells us how forgery is proved — that a judge need not surrender his judgment to handwriting experts, and that the solemn word of a notary public carries great weight.

Procedural History

Quintin Belgica filed a complaint for annulment of deed of sale, cancellation of title and reconveyance with damages against his wife and Antonio Ong in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 86. After trial, the Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint. It found that the signature on the special power of attorney was the true and genuine signature of the petitioner, and that the deed of absolute sale executed by Marilyn Belgica in favor of Antonio Ong was a valid and binding agreement.

Quintin appealed to the Court of Appeals, which denied the appeal for lack of strong evidence to warrant reversal. He moved for reconsideration, and that too was denied. He then came to the Supreme Court by a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, asking that the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals be set aside.

Facts

In 1983, Quintin Belgica and his wife Marilyn purchased a house and lot in Greenfields Subdivision, Novaliches, Quezon City. While Quintin was in the United States, Marilyn sold the property to Antonio Ong, relying on a special power of attorney dated the fourteenth of July, 1989, which she said her husband had executed in her favor.

When Quintin returned to the country, he questioned the authenticity of that special power of attorney. He claimed the signature above his typewritten name was not his. He sought the help of the Presidential Action Center, was referred to the National Bureau of Investigation, and submitted a photocopy of the questioned document together with several documents bearing his standard signatures. The Bureau's document examiner reported fundamental differences between the questioned and the standard signatures, but added that a definite determination could be made only after analysis of the original copy of the special power of attorney.

At trial, the Bureau's examiner testified for Quintin. The respondents countered with the chief of the Philippine National Police Crime Laboratory Service, who examined a carbon original copy of the document and concluded that the questioned signature and the standard signatures were written by one and the same person. The respondents also presented the notary public, who testified that Quintin signed the document in his presence. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals believed the respondents' evidence, and Quintin elevated the matter to the Supreme Court.

Issues

• Whether or not a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 may raise the question of the authenticity of a signature, which is a question of fact.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the finding that the signature of the petitioner on the special power of attorney was genuine and not forged.

Applicable Provisions

Section 4 of Rule 130 of the Rules of Court, on the original of a document, provides:

Section 4. Original of document. (a) The original of a document is one the contents of which are the subject of inquiry. (b) When a document is in two or more copies executed at or about the same time, with identical contents, all such copies are equally regarded as originals.

This provision bears on the case because the respondents' expert examined a carbon original copy of the special power of attorney, which the Court treated as an original document, while the petitioner's expert worked only from a photocopy.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the petition must fail because it raises a question of fact. The remedy of appeal by certiorari under Rule 45 should involve only questions of law. A question of law arises when there is doubt on what the law applicable to a certain set of facts is; a question of fact arises when there is an issue regarding the truth or falsity of the statement of facts. Whether evidence should be given probative value, or whether the proofs of one party are clear, convincing and adequate, are questions of fact. As a general rule, the findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, become final and conclusive, especially when supported by the records or based on substantial evidence. The Court acknowledged that the rule admits of exceptions, but found none present, since both lower courts competently laid down the factual and legal bases for their decisions.

On the second issue, the Court found no reason to disturb the finding of authenticity. The petitioner's expert based his comparison only on a photocopied document, and even he admitted that examining a photocopy may affect the result and that his finding was still subject to verification. The respondents' expert, by contrast, worked from a carbon original copy and could study in detail the strokes and nuances of the handwriting. The Court stressed that the authenticity of a signature is not so highly technical as to preclude a judge from examining the signature himself. A finding of forgery does not depend exclusively on expert testimony; judges can and must use their own judgment through an independent examination of the questioned signature. Both lower courts did exactly that. Finally, the notary public testified that the petitioner signed the document in his presence, and the testimony of a notary public, an officer of the court, enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness, especially where the latter's testimony consists of nothing more than mere denials. The petitioner invoked forgery but presented no competent evidence to support the accusation.

Doctrine

First, a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court may raise only questions of law. The findings of fact of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals and supported by substantial evidence, are final and conclusive and will not be reviewed on appeal.

Second, the authenticity of a signature is a question of fact, and a finding of forgery does not depend exclusively on the testimony of expert witnesses. The judge may and must use his own judgment, through an independent examination of the questioned signature, in determining the authenticity of the handwriting.

Third, an expert opinion based on a mere photocopy is neither definite nor conclusive, while an examination of an original document, as Section 4 of Rule 130 treats a carbon copy executed at or about the same time, is more persuasive.

Fourth, the testimony of a notary public, who is an officer of the court, enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness, especially when the latter offers nothing more than mere denials.

Disposition

The petition was denied, the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals were affirmed, and costs were taxed against the petitioner.

Remember This

Memorize this line: forgery is not proved by experts alone, for the judge may examine the signature himself, and the word of a notary public outweighs a bare denial. Examiners use this case on the limited scope of a Rule 45 petition and on the weight of expert and notarial testimony in questions of forged signatures.