You are on page 1of 1


GR No. 150897 ground that the parties failed to show that the specimen signatures were in fact
Apr 11 2005 Quisumbing, J. Bruno’s . Thus, he appealed to the CA.
SUMMARY: Petitioner discovered that his father sold the subject property In 2000, he filed a MNT based on newly discovered evidence of a letter signed by
wherein he later on resided in, to his other siblings. He alleged that their father’s Bruno requesting from PHHC permission to mortgage the property. He also filed a
signature was forged and had it examined by the PC-INP, which concluded that supplemental MNT asking authority to put up a sari-sari store therein. Motions
the DoS signature and the specimen signatures were written by 2 people. NBI, denied. CA also dismissed the case.
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 ISSUE(S): WoN lower courts erred in disregarding PC-INP’s report – NO.
that the lower courts erred in not considering the PC-INP report as reliable. SC
denied his petition. HELD: The genuineness of a handwriting may be proved by the following: (1) A
DOCTRINE: Courts are not bound to give probative value or evidentiary value witness who actually saw the person writing the instrument; (2) A witness familiar
to the opinions of handwriting experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not with such handwriting and who can give such opinion being an exception to the
mandatory. opinion rule; (3) A comparison by the court of the questioned handwriting and
admitted genuine specimen thereof; and (4) Expert evidence.
PROCEDURAL ANTECEDENTS: Rule 45 petition of CA Decision affirming RTC
which dismissed the case. 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
FACTS: bound to give probative value or evidentiary value to the opinions of handwriting
Bruno Domingo was a registered owner of a house and lot in Project 4, QC. In Dec. experts, as resort to handwriting experts is not mandatory.
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 CA disregarded the PC-INP’s report because the specimen used by the latter
witnessed by 2 people and notarized. Jose, one of the respondents, then brought the preceded that questioned DoS signature by more than 8 years. SC agreed with the
Deed to the RD and had the previous TCT cancelled and a new one issued in CA, stating that the passage of time and a person’s increase in age may have decisive
respondents’ names. Bruno died in Apr 6, 1975. 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
In 1981, petitioner (sibling of respondents), who was by then residing on the point of time to the suspected signature.
property, received a notice from the QC Hall, declaring him a squatter and directing
him to demolish his shanty. 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
In 1986, he learned of the existence of the DoS when an ejectment suit was filed proven, under Rule 132, Section 22, by anyone who actually saw the person write or
against him. Upon counsel’s advice, he had the PC-INP (now PNP), compare Bruno’s affix his signature on a document.
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 Finally, the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in the present case is a notarized
written by 2 different persons. Thus, he filed a complaint for forgery and falsification document. Being a public document, it s prima facie evidence of the facts therein
against his siblings and the notary public in QC. 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.
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