Challenging Notarized Documents: Forgery and the Burden of Proof in Property Disputes

A notarized document carries a strong presumption of regularity. In property disputes, this presumption can be a formidable barrier for a party claiming that a deed is a forgery. However, as the Supreme Court clarified in Tortona v. Gregorio (G.R. No. 202612, January 17, 2018), this presumption is not absolute. It can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, including expert testimony showing that a thumbmark or signature was simulated.

The case involved a dispute between the heirs of two sisters, Rufina and Rafaela Casimiro. The petitioners, heirs of Rufina, sought to recover her shares in two parcels of land. They discovered that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 14, 1974, allegedly showed Rufina selling her shares to Rafaela. The deed was notarized and bore what appeared to be Rufina's thumbmark.

The petitioners argued that their mother was illiterate and never knew about the sale. They presented an NBI fingerprint examiner who compared the thumbmark on the deed with Rufina's genuine thumbmarks on other documents. The examiner concluded that the thumbmark on the deed was not impressed by Rufina. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring the deed a forgery. The Court of Appeals reversed, emphasizing the presumption of regularity of notarized documents. The Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's ruling.

The Issue

The sole issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Deed of Absolute Sale was void because Rufina never consented to it, her thumbmark being a forgery.

The Ruling: Presumption of Regularity Can Be Overcome

The Supreme Court acknowledged that notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity. This means courts and the public can rely on the face of the instrument without further examination. However, the Court stressed that this presumption is disputable. It can be contradicted by evidence that is "clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant."

The burden of proof lies on the party assailing the document. In this case, the petitioners had to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the thumbmark on the deed was forged.

Expert Testimony and Credibility

The Court found that the petitioners successfully discharged this burden. The NBI examiner's report was clear: the questioned thumbmark was not identical to Rufina's genuine thumbmarks. The trial court judge also personally examined the thumbmarks and observed that the questioned mark was a "circle type" while Rufina's genuine marks were a "loop type." This visual difference, corroborated by the expert's findings, was sufficient to overcome the presumption.

The Court also addressed the respondents' attempt to discredit the NBI examiner by calling him "just an ordinary employee." The Court held that a witness's history of performing routine tasks does not negate their special knowledge, skill, or training. The examiner had personally compared the thumbmarks and detailed his findings. His credibility was further bolstered by the fact that he was designated by the NBI, not handpicked by the petitioners.

Standards for Proving Forgery

The Court reiterated the standards for establishing forgery, citing Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals:

• Forgery cannot be presumed; it must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence.
• The burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery.
• The best evidence is the instrument itself, and forgery is established by comparing the alleged forged mark with genuine specimens.
• A comparison based on a mere photocopy is unreliable; the original document is required.

Practical Takeaways

• A notarized document is presumed valid, but this presumption can be rebutted with clear and convincing evidence.
• If challenging a notarized deed for forgery, gather genuine specimen signatures or thumbmarks of the alleged signatory for comparison.
• Expert testimony is valuable but not automatically binding. Courts weigh expert opinions based on the witness's qualifications, the factual basis of the opinion, and the overall credibility of the testimony.
• Judges may conduct their own examination of the disputed signature or thumbmark. A visible difference, such as a different fingerprint pattern, can support a finding of forgery.
• The burden of proof is on the party alleging forgery. Mere allegations or reliance on the presumption of regularity by the opposing party is not enough to defeat clear expert evidence.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.