Spouses Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Samban

Spouses Bernales vs. Heirs of Julian Samban

[G.R. No. 163271, January 15, 2010]

Doctrines:

In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. When the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owners duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property.

The supposed vendor's signature having been proved to be a forgery, the instrument is totally void or inexistent as "absolutely simulated or fictitious" under Article 1409 of the Civil Code.

Facts:

          Julian Sambaan, married to Guillerma Saarenas-Sambaan, was the registered owner of a property located at Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City. The lot was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-14202. The respondents and the petitioner Myrna Bernales (Myrna) are the children of Julian and Guillerma. Myrna, who is the eldest of the siblings, is the present owner and possessor of the property in question.

          Sometime in 1975, Julian was ambushed and was hospitalized due to a gunshot wound. On April 11, 1975, Julian allegedly requested his children to gather so that he could make his last two wishes. Julians first wish was for the children to redeem the subject property which was mortgaged to Myrna and her husband Patricio Bernales. Thus, in 1982, respondent Absalon Sambaan, one of Julians children, offered to redeem the property but the petitioners refused because they were allegedly using the property as tethering place for their cattle.

          In January 1991, respondents received information that the property covered by TCT No. T-14202 was already transferred to petitioners name. Whereupon, they secured a copy of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 7, 1970 which bore the signatures of their parents and had it examined by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The result of the examination revealed that the signatures of their parents, Julian and Guillerma, were forged.

          On April 1993, the respondents, together with their mother Guillerma, filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale and cancellation of TCT No. T-14204 alleging that their parent’s signatures were forged. The trial court rendered a decision on August 2, 2001 cancelling the TCT and ordering another title to be issued in the name of the late Julian Sambaan.

Petitioners went to the CA and appealed the decision. The CA affirmed the decision of the lower court. A motion for reconsideration of the decision was, likewise, denied in 2004. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

Issues:

1.   Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale is authentic as to prove the ownership of the petitioners over the subject property.

2.   Whether or not the forged Deed of Absolute Sale is null and conveys no title.

3.   Whether or not prescription bars respondents’ action to recover ownership of the subject property.

Held:

1.       No. Well-settled is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.  Factual findings of the lower courts are entitled to great weight and respect on appeal, and in fact accorded finality when supported by substantial evidence on the record. Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla of evidence.s  It is that amount of relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion, even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise. But to erase any doubt on the correctness of the assailed ruling, the Court has carefully perused the records and, nonetheless, arrived at the same conclusion.  The Court finds that there is substantial evidence on record to support the Court of Appeals and trial court’s conclusion that the signatures of Julian and Guillerma in the Deed of Absolute Sale were forged.

         

          The examination conducted by the NBI disclosed that Julian and Guillermas signatures were forged. Moreover, petitioners failed to present any evidence to rebut the findings of the NBI handwriting expert.

          2.       The forged Deed of Absolute Sale is null and conveys no title. In order that the holder of a certificate for value issued by virtue of the registration of a voluntary instrument may be considered a holder in good faith and for value, the instrument registered should not be forged. Indubitably, therefore, the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale did not convey any title to herein petitioners. Consequently, they cannot take refuge in the protection accorded by the Torrens system on titled lands.

         

          Thus, the Supreme Court holds that with the presentation of the forged deed, even if accompanied by the owners duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner did not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the said property.

          3.       Prescription did not bar respondents’ action to recover ownership of the subject property. The supposed vendor's signature having been proved to be a forgery, the instrument is totally void or inexistent as “absolutely simulated or fictitious” under Article 1409 of the Civil Code. According to Article 1410, “the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. The inexistence of a contract is permanent and incurable which cannot be cured either by ratification or by prescription.”