398 Heirs of Sps. Liwagon v. Heirs of Sps.

Liwagon
G.R. No. 193117 (2014)
J. Villarama, Jr./ Tita K
Subject Matter: Rule 132, sec. 23 – Public document as evidence
Summary:
Petitioners and respondents are all children and grandchildren of the late Angel Liwagon. Angel was provisionally awarded a
parcel of land by Y. Furukawa Plantation, which he subsequently acquired through a sale. Angel’s son, Demetrio and his wife,
stayed with Angel and continuously occupied the same even after Angel’s death. When Demetrio also died, Demetrio’s sibling,
petitioner Josefina, demanded Demetrio’s son, Rodrigo, for a partition. Rodrigo refused alleging that Rodrigo’s mother had
acquired the said land from their grandfather, Angel, as evidenced by a deed of sale. Josefina filed an action for partition.
Petitioners presented Josefina as a sole witness. Josefina testified that Angel’s signature on the deed of sale was forged. Both
the trial and appellate court ruled in favor of Rodrigo and upheld the validity of the deed of sale as the presumption of its
validity was not overcome. WON the deed of sale executed is VALID. - YES

Doctrines:
The act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity. By law, a notarial document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
It enjoys the presumption of regularity and is a prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein — which may only be
overcome by evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Without such evidence, the presumption
must be upheld.

In this case, petitioners failed to overcome this presumption. Aside from the sole testimony of petitioner Josefina that
the signature appearing in the assailed Deed of Sale is not that of her father, no clear, positive and convincing
evidence was shown to corroborate such claim.

Parties:
HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANGEL LIWAGON and FRANCISCA DUMALAGAN, namely: NARCISA
LIWAGON-LAGANG, represented by her Heir VICTOR LIWAGON LAGANG, LEONCIO LIWAGON,
Petitioner
represented by his Heir GERONIMA VDA. DE LIWAGON, and JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO,
represented by their Attorney-in-Fact and for herself, JOSEFINA LIWAGON- ESCAUSO
HEIRS OF SPOUSES DEMETRIO LIWAGON and REGINA LIWAGON, namely: RODRIGO LIWAGON,
Respondent MINENCIA LIWAGON-OMITTER, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-NUEVO, TERESITO LIWAGON and DANILO
LIWAGON
Evidence: Josefina’s testimony, Rodrigo’s testimony
Facts:
 Petitioners and respondents in the case at bar are all children and grandchildren of the late spouses Angel and
Francisca Liwagon,
 In 1957, Angel Liwagon (deceased) was awarded an 8-hectare parcel of land by Y. Furukawa Plantation. Demetrio
(Angel’s son) and his wife Regina, stayed with Angel and administered the property in litigation.
 Eventually, Angel acquired the parcel of land from Y. Furkawa Plantationby sale. A deed of conveyance was executed
in Angel’s favor.
 After Angel’s demise in 1978, Demetrio and Regina, and their children, continuously occupied the land in litigation.
When Demetrio died, followed shortly by Regina, petitioner Josefina demanded for partition to Demetrio’s son,
Rodrigo.
 Rodrigo ignored the demand contending that they now owned the property as inheritance from their parents, who
had earlier lawfully acquired the land by purchase from their grandfather, as evidenced by a Deed of Sale dated 24
July 1972.
 Petitioners brought a case for annulment of the sale, partition, accounting and damages against the defendants, heirs
of Spouses Demetrio and Regina.
 Before the lower court, petitioners presented the testimony of Josefina Liwagon-Escauso (Josefina).
o JOSEFINA testified that:
  the signature appearing on the assailed Deed of Sale is not the signature of her father, and
 his father’s true signature is the one found on the Application for the sales patent.
 As she also testified to on cross-examination, she only learned, for the first time, that the subject
property was purportedly bought by the spouses Demetrio and Regina in 1994 when she was
demanding for the partition of the property.
o She only saw the assailed Deed of Sale when it was presented to her at the barangay office.
(see notes for the rest of his testimony)
 Respondents presented the testimony of Rodrigo Liwagon (Rodrigo).
o RODRIGO stated that:
 His mother acquired the subject property from his grandfather by way of sale.
 The subject land was already occupied by his family prior to the execution of the assailed Deed of
Sale.
 Such fact of residence is corroborated by a certification from the Barangay Secretary.
 It was also his mother, Regina, who paid the realty taxes evidenced by the corresponding Tax
Declarations and Certificate of Payment of Taxes presented.
 As testified to on cross-examination, while he was not present when the purported Deed of Sale, he
is in possession of the said document.
o Respondents also presented Julia DIvicagracia and Tobias Sapalo as witnesses. (see notes for their testimony)
Lower Court: The court a quo dismissed the complaint. The trial court found that petitioners failed to disprove the
genuineness of the signature of Angel in the purported Deed of Sale which was duly executed before a notary public. The
trial court held that the authenticity of the document must be upheld under the doctrine of presumption of regularity.
CA: CA denied the appeal. CA ruled that the purported Deed of Sale appears regular and valid on its face and petitioners
failed to present clear and convincing evidence to controvert the presumption that it was issued with regularity. It also
ruled that while there may be some variance or difference from the signatures affixed by Angel in the sales application and
the assailed Deed of Sale, “these variances could not be considered per se as conclusive proof that the signature in the
document in question has been forged.”
Issue: WON THE ALLEGED DEED OF SALE EXECUTED BY ANGEL LIWAGON IN FAVOR OF REGINA LIWAGON IS VALID. (YES)

Arguments:

Petitioners argue that that the purported Deed of Sale is invalid and has no force and effect because:

First, when Angel sold the subject land to Regina, he was not yet the owner of the land, therefore making the conveyance
devoid of any force and effect. At the time of the alleged sale, Angel was merely an awardee of the said property and was still
part of the government’s disposable public land.

Second, even if the purported Deed of Sale is a public document which enjoys the presumption of regularity, “the court may
validly determine forgery from its own independent examination of the documentary evidence at hand” and the trial judge
can do so “without resorting to experts, especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimen of the questioned signatures with those of
currently existing ones.”

Third, the fact that their brother Demetrio, during his lifetime, never brought out the existence of the Deed of Sale is a form of
concealment which is “an indication of guilt and fully supports petitioners’ position that the subject Deed of Sale is fictitious.

Ratio:

YES– The DEED OF SALE is VALID. Both the trial and appellate courts correctly ruled in favor of the due execution of the
subject Deed of Sale which was duly acknowledged and recorded by Atty. Alfredo Abayon in his notarial registry.

 It is a rule in our jurisdiction that the act of notarization by a notary public converts a private document into a
 public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of its authenticity. By law, a notarial
document is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face. It enjoys the presumption of regularity and is a prima
facie evidence of the facts stated therein — which may only be overcome by evidence that is clear, convincing and
more than merely preponderant. Without such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.
o Petitioners failed to overcome this presumption.
o Aside from the sole testimony of petitioner Josefina that the signature appearing in the assailed Deed of
Sale is not that of her father, no clear, positive and convincing evidence was shown to corroborate such
claim.

RE: Argument on forgery of Angel’s signature

The trial court correctly appreciated the testimony of Josefina. Josefina testified that the signature affixed on top of the
typewritten name of Angel Liwagon is not the real and true signature of her father Angel. Trial court also correctly ruled that
the presentation of a copy of a sales application is not enough to substantiate her claim that the signature found on said
application is the real and true signature of her father Angel Liwagon.

 In Tapuroc v. Loquellano Vda. de Mende, glaring dissimilarities between the two sets of signatures are immediately
evident to support their claim of forgery. We reiterated the rule in Tapuroc that forgery cannot be presumed and it
must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence. Its mere allegation is not evidence and the burden of
proof lies on the party alleging it.
 The Court identified and explained the factors involved in the examination and comparison of handwritings:
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 signatures 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 the
questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between
that questioned handwriting and an authentic one.
o Prescinding from the foregoing, the contention of petitioners must fail that a “visual comparison” of Angel’s
signatures in the purported Deed of Sale and in his Application with the Bureau of Lands and Affidavit would
reveal “that the signature in the Deed of Sale was not genuine.”
o Not only did petitioners fail to present clear, positive and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption
of regularity in favor of the assailed document, they merely stated these two sentences in this petition for
review to support their claim of forgery via a visual comparison of two signatures, the word “Liwagon” in his
signature is very legible and readable. On the other hand, the word “Liwagon” in his signature appearing in
 the Deed of Sale is not legible or clear.

Wherefore, WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED.

NOTES:

JOSEFINA testified that:

 her father had acquired an eight-hectare parcel of land from the Furukawa Plantation.
 she and her siblings cultivated and planted coconuts on the subject land in 1955.
 Demetrio was later allowed by his siblings to attend to the land.
 He then took charge of the harvesting and making of copra, and remained in possession of the subject land during their lifetime.
 After he and his wife died, their children retained possession of the property.
 Since the death of their father, she and her sisters never received any share from the income derived from the proceeds of the
improvements on the land.
 Her brother Demetrio allegedly refused to give their share because he claimed that the income derived from the land was not even
sufficient for his own needs.
 the reason she did not demand for her share in the past was because her brother Demetrio and his wife were then hard up.

RODRIGO stated that:

Petitioners are his aunties Gregoria Liwagon-Grundio, Josefina Liwagon- Escauso and uncles Narciso Liwagon and Leoncio Liwagon.

He, his parents and siblings occupied and cultivated 17 hectares of the Furukawa Plantation in order for his grandfather (Angel) to be awarded a
title over 8 hecatres of the said lot.

o JULIA testified that:

 she and the late spouses Demetrio and Regina were neighbors.
 she owns a nine-hectare parcel of land at the Furukawa Plantation, while the late spouses owned eight hectares.
 After the death of the spouses, their children occupied the subject land.
 As testified to on cross-examination, her lot is located about one kilometer from the land of the late spouses.
 She, however, had no personal knowledge as to who cultivated and introduced the improvements to the subject land.
 As she clarified on redirect examination, she saw respondents and their father Demetrio attend to the young
coconuts.

TOBIAS Sapalo (Tobias), Regina’s brother, testified that in 1954, the late spouses Demetrio and Regina joined several other applicants who entered
and cultivated certain portions.