DIGESTED BY: LLANERA , JONNALYN DC

G.R. No. 172167               July 9, 2008

SOLEDAD E. DIZON, CORAZON R. ESPINOSA, CYNTHIA R. ESPINOSA, JENNIFER R.

ESPINOSA, JULIE R. ESPINOSA, GELACIO R. ESPINOSA, JR., and JOSELITO R.
ESPINOSA, Petitioners,
vs.
RODRIGO G. TUAZON and ESTRELLA M. TUAZON, Respondents.

FACTS
The petitioner Soledad Dizon is the daughter of Segundo Espino who owns one-half undivided
share in two parcels of land and both situated in Brgy. Tibag, Tarlac, Tarlac. When Segundo was
widowed, he cohabited with one Laureana Bondoc and sired Estrella Tuazon.
Soledad wanted to transfer the property to her name however it was Titles of properties was in
the name spouses Estrella and respondent Rodrigo Tuazon (Rodrigo) who had already bought the
property.
However, it was alleged that respondents executed an agreement of Subdivision and the
signature of Segundo was forged. When this matter was brought to the barangay they did not
reconcile. This matter was first not brought to court because Segundo fell ill and died.
Petitioners filed a complaint for nullity of Deed of Absolute Sale, Affidavit of Non-tenancy,
Agreement of Subdivision dated alleging that Segundo’s signature was forged.
The RTC favored the petitioners and ruled that signatures were not Segundo’s then declared null
and void the documents.  It based its conclusion on the NBI Report which stated that the
abbreviated signature in the Agreement of Subdivision and the standard sample signatures of
Segundo were not affixed by one and the same person; hence, the document is falsified. Anent
the Deed of Sale and the Affidavit of Non-tenancy, the trial court concluded that the signatures
therein could not have been Segundo’s because Segundo always affixed his signature by writing
his full name and surname.
On Appeal tp CA, it reversed the RTC and ruled in favor of the Respondents that the petitioners
failed to show preponderance of evidence with the forge being absent . Because even the NBI
report stated that no definite opinion of falsification/forgery could be rendered on the questioned
signatures appearing in the Deed of Absolute Sale since the sample signatures could not serve as
sufficient basis for a scientific comparative examination.
ISSUE
Whether or not Segundos signature was forged?
HELD
NO.
 The probative force of the testimony of an expert does not lie in a mere statement of his theory
or opinion, but rather in the aid that he can render to the courts in showing the facts which serve
as a basis for his criterion and the reasons upon which the logic of his conclusion is founded. The
handwriting expert gave only a definitive conclusion as to Segundo’s signature in the Agreement
of Subdivision, and not in the Affidavit of Non-tenancy or more importantly in the Deed of
Absolute Sale. An accurate examination to determine forgery should dwell on both the
differences and similarities between the questioned signatures. Obviously, the abbreviated
signature is different from the full signature presented by petitioners.An accurate examination to
determine forgery should dwell on both the differences and similarities between the questioned
signatures. Obviously, the abbreviated signature is different from the full signature presented by
petitioners. However, we find that there are only slight dissimilarities between the surname
"Espinosa" in the questioned documents and in the samples. These slight dissimilarities do not
indicate forgery for these are natural, expected and inevitable variations in genuine signatures
made by one and the same person.

Even in the claim that rental payments of one of the tenants of the subject properties were given
to Segundo and, after his death, to Soledad likewise does not point to the conclusion that
Segundo’s signature was forged.

Therefore, Petition is Denied. Decision of the CA is affirmed.