#6 Domingo v.

Domingo

TURADIO C. DOMINGO vs. JOSE C. DOMINGO and REGISTER OF DEEDS

G.R. No. 150897
April 11, 2005

Facts:

Petitioner Turadio Domingo is the oldest of the five children of the late Bruno B.
Domingo, formerly the registered owner of the properties subject of the dispute. Private
respondents are petitioner’s siblings. A family quarrel arose over the validity of the
purported sale of the house and lot by their father to private respondents. Sometime in
1981 petitioner, who by then was residing on the disputed property, received a notice,
declaring him a squatter. Petitioner learned of the existence of the assailed Deed of
Absolute Sale when an ejectment suit was filed against him. Subsequently, he had the
then Philippine Constabulary-Integrated National Police (PC-INP, now Philippine
National Police or PNP) Crime Laboratory compare the signature of Bruno on the said
deed against specimen signatures of his father. As a result, the police issued him
Questioned Document Report to the effect that the questioned signature and the
standard signatures were written by two different persons. Thus, petitioner filed a
complaint for forgery, falsification by notary public, and falsification by private individuals
against his siblings. But after it conducted an examination of the questioned documents,
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) came up with the conclusion that the
questioned signature and the specimen signatures were written by one and the same
person, Bruno B. Domingo. Consequently, petitioner instituted a case for the declaration
of the nullity of the Deed of Sale, reconveyance of the disputed property, and
cancellation of TCT.

Issue:

Whether or not the Court erred when it held that the trial court correctly applied the rules
of evidence in disregarding the conflicting PC-INP and NBI questioned document
reports.

Decision:

No. The decision of the CA is affirmed. 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. The law makes no preference, much less distinction among and
between the different means stated above in proving the handwriting of a person.
The PC-INP used as standards of comparison the alleged signatures of Bruno in two
documents, namely: letter to the Bureau of Treasury dated April 1, 1958 and Republic
Bank Check No. 414356 dated November 2, 1962. These documents precede by more
than eight years the questioned Deed which was executed on December 30, 1970. This
circumstance makes the PC-INP’s finding questionable. 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, neither the trial court nor the
appellate court may be faulted for refusing to place any weight whatsoever on the PC-
INP questioned document report. The questioned Deed of Absolute Sale in the present
case is a notarized document. Being a public document, it is prima facie evidence of the
facts therein 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.
Petitioner has failed to show that such contradictory evidence exists in this case.