The monumental slip up
While Don was in the United States, he discovered that Duane took possession and control of a Quezon City property which the former claimed to be his.
Don further claimed that Duane took over his business situated in the said property. Don’s Philippine lawyers made demands upon Duane to vacate the subject property and to cease and desist from operating his business, but to no avail.
Don immediately returned to the Philippines and filed a complaint for annulment of title and reconveyance of property with damages against Duane and other persons
Don, in his complaint, alleged that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale, by virtue of which he purportedly sold the subject property to Duane, was a forgery. He said that it was not possible for him to have signed the said document as he was not in in the Philippines on July 16, 2001, the date of execution and notarization thereof, he being in the United States at the time.
To prove his point, Don offered in evidence, among others, the immigration stamps on his passport, showing that he departed from the Philippines on June 20, 2001 and returned on August 30, 2001.
Don also claimed that Duane conspired with the employees of the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City to defraud him, and that Duane is an American citizen and a non-resident alien who is, therefore, not allowed by law to own any real property in the Philippines.
In their answer with counterclaim, Duane and Em claimed that the subject property had been lawfully transferred to them, asserting that Don executed an Occupancy Agreement whereby he acknowledged that Duane had been residing thereat; that Duane had extended a loan to him and secured by a mortgage over the subject property and its improvements; and that until full payment thereof, Don allowed Duane to occupy the same.
Duane and Em likewise claimed that Don executed a Special Power of Attorney in favor of Duane, giving him full authority to sell, mortgage, or lease the subject property.
Don, however, failed to pay his obligation to Duane. Thus, they initially executed a “unilateral contract of sale” over the subject property. Eventually, however, they executed the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 16, 2001.
As such, Duane argued that Don cannot feign ignorance of the sale of the subject property to them.
Unfortunately for Don, the trial court dismissed his complaint on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, finding that the Deed of Absolute Sale, being a public and notarial document, enjoys the presumption of regularity, and thus cannot be simply defeated by Don’s bare allegation of forgery of his signature thereon.
Q: How does one prove forgery?
A: Forgery, as a rule, cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged. The authenticity of a questioned signature cannot be determined solely upon its general characteristics, similarities or dissimilarities with the genuine signature.
Dissimilarities as regards spontaneity, rhythm, pressure of the pen, loops in the strokes, signs of stops, shades, etc., that may be found between the questioned signature and the genuine one are not decisive on the question of the former’s authenticity.
The result of examinations of questioned handwriting, even with the benefit of aid of experts and scientific instruments, is, at best, inconclusive.
There are other factors that must be taken into consideration. The position of the writer, the condition of the surface on which the paper where the questioned signature is written is placed, his state of mind, feelings and nerves, and the kind of pen and/or paper used, play an important role on the general appearance of the signature.
Unless, therefore, there is, in a given case, absolute absence, or manifest dearth, of direct or circumstantial competent evidence on the character of a questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between that questioned handwriting and an authentic one.
Q: Was Don able to prove forgery?
A: No. The immigration stamps are insufficient to prove that Don was physically absent from the country to have been able to appear before the notary public on July 16, 2001, the date of the acknowledgment of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
He failed to prove his arrival or entry in the United States, where he alleged to have gone, and his departure therefrom to return to the Philippines. Without evidence of such admittance to and departure from the United States, one cannot discount the possibility that Don may have returned to the Philippines anytime between those dates to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale.
This is especially so in light of his own admission in the complaint that he returned to the Philippines “sometime in the last week of July 2001” allegedly to ascertain the truth and veracity of the information he received that the subject property had been transferred to Duane. These inconsistencies heavily militate against him, effectively tainting his credibility as a witness and rendering doubtful the veracity of his testimony.
Q: Who is the owner of the property?
A: Notwithstanding that forgery was not proven by clear and convincing evidence, Don must still be considered as the owner of the property.
It must be noted that Duane admitted in his answer with counterclaim, that he is an American citizen and a non-resident of the Philippines. This are admissions against interest and are therefore binding upon him.
An admission against interest is the best evidence which affords the greatest certainty of the facts in dispute since no man would declare anything against himself unless such declaration is true.
Hence, given Duane’s admission that he is an American citizen, he effectively rendered the sale of the subject property as to him void ab initio, in light of the clear proscription under Section 7, Article XII of the Constitution against foreigners acquiring real property in the Philippines.
So even if Don failed to prove that his signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was a forgery, the sale of the subject property to Duane is in violation of the Constitution–hence, null and void ab initio.
A contract that violates the Constitution and the law is null and void and vests no rights and creates no obligations. It produces no legal effect at all.
Furthermore, Duane is barred from recovering any amount that he paid for the subject property, the action being proscribed by the Constitution. (Source: Heirs of Donton vs. Stier, G.R. No 216491, August 23, 2017, [J. Perlas-Bernabe, Second Division])
The author is Dean, College of Law at the Lyceum of the Philippines University; Member, Civil Law Department of the Philippine Judicial Academy
