TURADIO C. DOMINGO, PETITIONER, VS. JOSE C. DOMINGO, LEONORA DOMINGO-CASTRO AND HER SPOUSE JUANITO CASTRO, NUNCIA DOMINGO-BALABIS, ABELLA DOMINGO VALENCERINA AND THE REGISTER OF…

Domingo versus Domingo

The Case

This is a petition for review brought by Turadio C. Domingo against his own siblings, Jose Domingo, Leonora Domingo-Castro and her spouse Juanito Castro, Nuncia Domingo-Balabis, and Abella Domingo Valencerina, together with the Register of Deeds. The petitioner asks that a Deed of Absolute Sale over a house and lot in Project 4, Quezon City, allegedly executed by their late father Bruno B. Domingo in favor of four of his children, be declared null and void, with reconveyance of the property and cancellation of the title issued to the vendees. The case matters because it gathers in one place the rules on proving the genuineness of handwriting, the weight owed to handwriting experts, and the presumptions that shield a notarized deed — the very evidentiary questions examiners love to test.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 90, for declaration of the nullity of the deed, reconveyance, and cancellation of the new title. The trial court dismissed the complaint, disregarding the conflicting questioned document reports of the police crime laboratory and the National Bureau of Investigation, and finding no proof that prior approval of the housing agency was required for a valid sale. The petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in full. While the appeal was pending, he filed a motion for new trial and a supplemental motion for new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, consisting of a letter of Bruno to the housing agency and the agency's reply; both motions were denied. The Court of Appeals then promulgated its decision affirming the appealed judgment entirely. The petitioner came to the Supreme Court by petition for review under Rule 45.

Facts

Bruno B. Domingo, a widower and retired military man, was the registered owner of a house and lot at 34 H. Honrubia Street, Project 4, Quezon City, covered by a transfer certificate of title. In December 1970, needing money for his medical expenses, he signed a Deed of Absolute Sale conveying the property to his children Leonora, Nuncia, Abella, and Jose for ten thousand pesos. The deed was witnessed and notarized. Jose brought the deed to the Register of Deeds, the old title was cancelled, and a new title was issued in the names of the vendees. Bruno died in April 1975.

In 1981 the petitioner, who was then residing on the property, received a notice from Quezon City Hall declaring him a squatter and directing him to demolish his shanty, at the instance of his brother Jose and sister Leonora. In 1986, when an ejectment suit was filed against him, he learned of the assailed deed. On his counsel's advice, the police crime laboratory compared Bruno's signature on the deed with specimen signatures and issued a questioned document report concluding that the questioned and standard signatures were written by two different persons; a later police report reached the same conclusion. The petitioner then filed a criminal complaint for forgery and falsification against his siblings and the notary. The National Bureau of Investigation, however, concluded that the questioned signature and the specimen signatures were written by one and the same person, Bruno B. Domingo. The public prosecutor dismissed the criminal complaint, and the Department of Justice affirmed the dismissal.

The petitioner then instituted the civil action in October 1989, alleging forgery and violation of a restriction annotated on the title requiring prior approval of the housing agency for any sale. The respondents relied on the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the trial court correctly applied the rules of evidence in disregarding the conflicting police and National Bureau of Investigation questioned document reports.
• Whether or not the police crime laboratory report should have been given weight and probative value over the other evidence of the genuineness of Bruno's signature.
• Whether or not the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale is entitled to the presumption of regularity and must be upheld absent clear and convincing contrary evidence.

Applicable Provisions

Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides:

The handwriting of a person may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged, and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

This provision supplies the four means of proving handwriting and grounds the ruling that a witness who actually saw Bruno sign the deed could prove its genuineness.

Section 49 of Rule 130 provides:

The opinion of a witness on a matter requiring special knowledge, skill, experience or training which he is shown to possess, may be received in evidence.

This is the basis for receiving expert evidence on handwriting, which the Court holds is not mandatory and not binding on the courts.

Section 50 of Rule 130 provides:

The opinion of a witness for which proper basis is given, may be received in evidence regarding a handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity.

This allows an ordinary witness familiar with the handwriting to give an opinion, another of the recognized means of proof.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err. Under the Rules, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved by a witness who actually saw the person writing, by a witness familiar with the handwriting, by comparison made by the court, and by expert evidence. The law makes no preference among these means, and courts are not bound to give probative value to the opinions of handwriting experts, since resort to them is not mandatory.

On the second issue, the Court refused to give weight to the police report. The police used as standards signatures on documents executed in 1958 and 1962, more than eight years before the questioned deed of 1970. The passage of time and a person's increase in age may have decisive influence on handwriting characteristics, so the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature. The police examination did not conform to this standard. By contrast, the testimonies of Clerma Domingo, Leonora, and Jose, who saw Bruno affix his signature to the questioned deed, were unrebutted, and findings of the trial court on the credibility of witnesses are accorded the greatest respect.

On the third issue, the Court held that the questioned deed, being notarized, is a public document and prima facie evidence of the facts therein expressed. It carries the presumption of regularity, and to contradict it the evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. The petitioner failed to show such evidence.

Doctrine

First, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved by any of four means — a witness who saw the person write, a witness familiar with the handwriting, comparison by the court, or expert evidence — and the law makes no preference among them. Second, the opinion of a handwriting expert is not mandatory and does not bind the courts. Third, for an accurate comparison, the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in point of time to the suspected signature, because age and the passage of time alter handwriting. Fourth, a notarized deed is a public document, prima facie evidence of the facts therein expressed, and clothed with the presumption of regularity, which can be overcome only by clear and convincing evidence.

Disposition

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

Remember This

Memorize this line: a handwriting expert's opinion is not mandatory and does not bind the court, and the standards of comparison must be as close as possible in time to the questioned signature. Examiners use this case for the rules on proving handwriting under Rule 132 and for the presumption of regularity that protects a notarized deed.