Bernales vs Sambaan

Facts:
Julian was the owner of a lot. He was ambushed. Before he died,
Julian requested his children to gather so that he could make his
last two wishes, one of which is to redeem the subject property
from Myrna, Julian’s daughter. Absalon offered to redeem the lot
but Myrna refused. It was found out that the lot was already in the
name of Myrna by virtue of deed of sale allegedly executed by
Julian in favor of Myrna. Heirs of Julian posit that the signature of
Julian in the deed of sale was forged. However, Myrna denied the
allegation. The NBI, through Atty. Dalisay, examined and confirms
that Julian’s signature was forged.

Issue:
Whether or not Julian’s signature was forged?

Ruling:
We are not swayed by petitioners' allegation that the comparisons
made by the document examiner, the CA and the trial court, of
Guillerma's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale and her
specimen signatures, violated Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court on the authentication of private documents. It should be
borne in mind that in this case respondents were not presenting
evidence to authenticate a private document. On the contrary,
they are challenging the signatures appearing in the Deed of
Absolute Sale.

Nacu vs CSC
Facts:

PEZA issued a memorandum prohibiting its employees from

charging and collecting overtime fees from PEZA registered
enterprises. EBCC filed a complaint against Nacu for allegedly
charging it overtime fees despite the memorandum order. During
the investigation, Ligan attested, among others, that the overtime
fees went to Nacu's group, and that, during the time Nacu was
confined in the hospital, she pre-signed documents and gave
them to him. Nacu denied that the signatures appearing on the
ten overtime billing statements were hers.

Issue:

Whether or not the signatures appearing on the overtime billing

was of Nacu.

Ruling: YES!

Margallo, a co-employee who holds the same position as Nacu,

also identified the latter's signatures on the SOS. Such testimony
deserves credence. It has been held that an ordinary witness may
testify on a signature he is familiar with. Anyone who is familiar
with a person's writing from having seen him write, from carrying
on a correspondence with him, or from having become familiar
with his writing through handling documents and papers known to
have been signed by him may give his opinion as to the
genuineness of that person's purported signature when it
becomes material in the case

Rules of Court, Rule 130, Sec. 50 provides:SEC. 50. Opinion of

ordinary witnesses. -- The opinion of a witness for which proper
basis is

given, may be received in evidence regarding --

xxxx(b) A handwriting with which he has sufficient familiarity.