Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=83873:58568&catid=1589&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:59:09+00:00

Document:
G.R. No. 193117, November 26, 2014 - HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANGEL LIWAGON AND FRANCISCA DUMALAGAN, NAMELY: NARCISA LIWAGON-LAGANG, REPRESENTED BY HER HEIR VICTOR LIWAGON LAGANG, LEONCIO LIWAGON, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR GERONIMA VDA. LIWAGON, AND JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT AND FOR HERSELF, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES DEMETRIO LIWAGON AND REGINA LIWAGON, NAMELY: RODRIGO LIWAGON, MINENCIA LIWAGON-OMITTER, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-NUEVO, TERESITO LIWAGON AND DANILO LIWAGON, Respondents.
HEIRS OF SPOUSES ANGEL LIWAGON AND FRANCISCA DUMALAGAN, NAMELY: NARCISA LIWAGON-LAGANG, REPRESENTED BY HER HEIR VICTOR LIWAGON LAGANG, LEONCIO LIWAGON, REPRESENTED BY HIS HEIR GERONIMA VDA. LIWAGON, AND JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT AND FOR HERSELF, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-ESCAUSO, Petitioners, v. HEIRS OF SPOUSES DEMETRIO LIWAGON AND REGINA LIWAGON, NAMELY: RODRIGO LIWAGON, MINENCIA LIWAGON-OMITTER, JOSEFINA LIWAGON-NUEVO, TERESITO LIWAGON AND DANILO LIWAGON, Respondents.
Before this Court is a petition for review on certiorari of the Decision1 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in Cagayan de Oro City dated October 23, 2009 and its Resolution2 dated June 24, 2010 in CA-G.R. CV No. 00965-MIN affirming in toto the September 5, 2006 Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Mati, Davao Oriental in Civil Case No. 1902.
Together with his children, he cultivated and introduced improvements on the land. Later, his children got married and lived their own lives – except for his son Demetrio.
One of Angel’s sons named Demetrio, together with his wife Regina, stayed with the former and administered the property in litigation. The defendants – who are all Demetrio’s children – helped with the cultivation and took care of the family’s copra-making business.
Eventually, Angel applied to the Y. Furukawa Tarragona Plantation for final acquisition of the land by sale. A deed of conveyance was thus executed in Angel’s favor. As he grew older, Angel stayed with his children, one after the other. He became sickly in 1976, while staying with one of his daughters in Misamis Occidental, until the time of his death in 1978.
Ordering the plaintiffs to pay the costs of suit.
Petitioners filed a Notice of Appeal before the CA in Cagayan de Oro City, raising the issues on whether or not the purported deed of sale is void and whether the present action is barred by prescription. Petitioners maintained that the purported Deed of Sale was simulated and fictitious because the signature of their father was forged. They emphasized that the deed was never shown to them by the late spouses Demetrio and Regina who, during their lifetime, could not have had the financial capacity to make the purchase. As to the issue of prescription, petitioners argued that their cause of action is imprescriptible because it involves the declaration of nullity of a forged document.
FOR THE REASONS STATED, the appealed Decision dated 5 September 2006 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Mati, Davao Oriental, is AFFIRMED in toto; with costs against the plaintiffs-appellants.
Petitioners failed to overcome this presumption.
In the case of Tapuroc v. Loquellano Vda. de Mende,27 petitioners similarly contended “that by merely examining the signatures in the questioned Deed of Sale and the genuine signatures of their predecessors-in-interest in their Special Power of Attorney, the glaring dissimilarities between the two sets of signatures are immediately evident to support their claim of forgery.”28 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.29 The Court held in that case that the bare denial of therein petitioners that their predecessors-in-interest signed the subject Deed of Sale did not suffice to overcome the presumption of regularity of notarized documents.
SECTION 1. Filing of petition with Supreme Court. – A party desiring to appeal by certiorari from a judgment or final order or resolution of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, the Regional Trial Court or other courts whenever authorized by law, may file with the Supreme Court a verified petition for review on certiorari. The petition shall raise only questions of law which must be distinctly set forth.
All the more, the Court cannot be called on to decide on an issue of fact which was never raised in the Amended Complaint37 before the trial court which could have had the opportunity to hear and to rule on the evidence presented to support petitioners’ claim. It is one of the instant arguments of petitioners that the Deed of Absolute Sale over the subject property was issued in the name of Angel only in 1974. Hence, when Angel sold the subject land to Regina in 1972, he was not yet the owner of the land – making the conveyance devoid of any force and effect under the law.
To be sure, the stated cause of action of petitioners for the annulment of the subject Deed of Sale in their Amended Complaint was anchored on forgery. Hence, testimonial and documentary evidence were presented and offered to the trial court to prove the existence of such forgery. Petitioners cannot now allege a new cause of action – in this petition for review – for invalidating the subject Deed of Sale by arguing that when “Angel Liwagon sold the subject land to Regina Liwagon, he was not yet the owner of the land x x x and had no right to transfer or convey the property.38 x x x Consequently, the conveyance x x x had no force and effect.”39 It is the trial court which has the jurisdiction to hear and to try evidence that should have been adduced by the parties as to whether Angel neither had ownership nor authority to convey the subject property to Regina.
Lastly, as to petitioners making an issue of the circumstance that their brother Demetrio never disclosed to them the existence of the purported Deed of Sale, such “unexplained delay in disclosing the alleged deed of sale”42 is not sufficient basis to declare that the sale was fictitious and hence not valid. While petitioners may consider it as concealment and as a sign of guilt that the purported deed is fictitious, this Court needs relevant, convincing and clear evidence – and not mere unsubstantiated conjectures – especially in this case where petitioners failed to discharge their burden to prove on all points that the assailed Deed of Sale was not valid.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the petition is DENIED. The assailed Decision and Resolution dated October 23, 2009 and June 24, 2010, respectively, of the Court of Appeals in Cagayan de Oro City in CA-G.R. CV No. 00965-MIN are AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioners.
1Rollo, pp. 99-108. Penned by Associate Justice Edgardo A. Camello with Associate Justices Edgardo T. Lloren and Leoncia R. Dimagiba concurring.
3 Id. at 72-91. Penned by Judge Diosdado A. Yamas.
5 Id. at 100-101. Citations omitted.
16 Id. at 102-103. Citations omitted.
18 Id. at 103-104. Citations omitted.
19 Id. at 105-106. Citations omitted.
22 Id. at 35, citing Spouses Estacio v. Dr. Jaranilla, 462 Phil. 723, 733 (2003).
24Gonzales v. Atty. Ramos, 499 Phil. 345, 347 (2005).
25Cavile v. Heirs of Cavile, 448 Phil. 302, 315 (2003). Citations omitted.
27 541 Phil. 93 (2007).
30 Id. at 104-105. Citations omitted.
34Tapuroc v. Loquellano Vda. de Mende, supra note 27, at 101-102, citing Republic v. Court of Appeals, 402 Phil. 498, 508 (2001); Floro v. Llenado, 314 Phil. 715 (1995); Remalante v. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930 (1988); Benguet Exploration, Inc. v. CA, 404 Phil. 270 (2001).
35 Id. at 102, citing PT & T Corp. v. Court of Appeals, 458 Phil. 905 (2003).
40 G.R. No. 171937, November 25, 2013, 710 SCRA 505.
41 Id. at 510-511. Citations omitted.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.