4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

G.R. No. 200013. January 14, 2015.*

BETTY GEPULLE-GARBO, represented by Attorney-in-Fact,

MINDA G. ROSALES (now represented by her new Attorney-in-
Fact, GARY LLOYD G. ROSALES), petitioner, vs. SPOUSES
VICTOREY ANTONIO GARABATO and JOSEPHINE S.
GARABATO, respondents.

Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review on

Certiorari; The function of the Court in petitions for review on certiorari is
limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been committed by the
lower courts.—The issue raised by petitioner is essentially factual in nature,
the determination of which is best left to the courts below. Well-settled is the
rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The function of the Court
in petitions for review on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that
may have been committed by the lower courts. As a matter of sound
practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the factual
findings of trial courts, more so, when as here, such findings are undisturbed
by the appellate court. Stated otherwise, the Court refrains from further
scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more so when those findings are
affirmed by the CA. To do otherwise would defeat the very essence of Rule
45 and would convert the Court into a trier of facts, which is not meant to
be. Certainly the rule admits exceptions none, however, is applicable to the
case at bar. Absent any application of any of the recognized exceptions, this
Court is bound by the findings of fact by the lower courts.
Same; Evidence; Burden of Proof; Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of
Court provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the
truth of his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence
required by law.—In any event, Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court
provides that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of
his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence required
by law.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

190

190 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

Forgery; As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by

clear, positive and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on the party
alleging forgery.—As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be
proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies
on the party alleging forgery. One who alleges forgery has the burden to
establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of
greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition
to it. The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between
the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the
person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.
Remedial Law; Evidence; Handwriting Experts; The opinion of
handwriting experts are not necessarily binding upon the court, the expert’s
function being to place before the court data upon which the court can form
its own opinion.—The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily
binding upon the court, the expert’s function being to place before the court
data upon which the court can form its own opinion. This principle holds
true especially when the question involved is mere handwriting similarity or
dissimilarity, which can be determined by a visual comparison of specimens
of the questioned signatures with those of the currently existing ones. A
finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimonies of
handwriting experts, because the judge must conduct an independent
examination of the questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable
conclusion as to its authenticity.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Rosero Law Office for petitioner.
Nenita D.C. Tuazon for respondents.

191

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 191

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

Before us is a petition1 for review on certiorari seeking to

reverse and set aside the May 20, 2011 Decision2 and January 5,
2012 Resolution3 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in C.A.-G.R. CV
No. 87912 affirming the August 7, 2006 Decision4 of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 108 dismissing the petition5
for cancellation of certificate of title filed by petitioner Betty
Gepulle-Garbo against respondents Victorey and Josephine
Garabato, for insufficiency of evidence.
The facts of the case follow.
Nick Garbo6 (Nick) was married to Eduviges Garabato
(Eduviges) sometime before 1978. During their marriage, they had a
daughter named Florence Garabato (Florence) who in turn had a son
out of wedlock, respondent Victorey Antonio Garabato (Victorey).
During the subsistence of Nick and Eduviges’ marriage, Nick
cohabited with petitioner Betty Gepulle-Garbo (Betty).
On June 17, 1977, a Deed of Sale7 was executed between
Eduviges and Florence whereby the former sold to the latter a 303-
square-meter parcel of land, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) No. 17986, in Pasay City. The deed of sale was signed by
Nick Garbo.

_______________

1 Under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

2 Rollo, pp. 68-83. Penned by Associate Justice Rodil V. Zalameda, with
Associate Justices Amelita G. Tolentino and Normandie B. Pizarro, concurring.
3 Id., at pp. 85-88.
4 Id., at pp. 399-405. The decision was rendered in Civil Case No. 01-0231 and
penned by Judge Maria Rosario B. Ragasa.
5 Id., at pp. 89-94.
6 Nicolas Garabato changed his name to Nick Garbo when he became a
naturalized American citizen.
7 Exh. “I-5,” Records, p. 203.

192

192 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

On May 12, 1978, Eduviges passed away. Three months after, on

August 12, 1978, Nick married Betty. On October 26, 1988,
Florence registered the property in her name and was issued TCT

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

No. 126959.8 Florence died on March 4, 1992 while Nick died on

February 28, 1996.
In 1996, respondent Victorey, married to corespondent Josephine,
registered the subject property in his name by virtue of a Deed of
Sale9 executed by Florence in his favor. On October 15, 1996,
respondent was issued TCT No. 136900.10
On August 2, 2001, petitioner filed a petition11 for cancellation of
TCT No. 136900 against respondents. She impugns the validity of
the June 17, 1977 Deed of Sale on the ground that the signatures of
Nick and Eduviges were forged by Florence. Petitioner also assailed
the deed of sale between Florence and Victorey.
Petitioner claimed that Nick had previously sought the
examination of his alleged signature on the June 17, 1977 Deed of
Sale by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI). The NBI
examiner allegedly found that the questioned signature and the
standard signatures of Nick were not written by one and the same
person. Petitioner further alleged that Nick had filed a criminal
complaint for falsification against Florence though the case was
dismissed due to lack of probable cause. In addition, petitioner
averred that on February 6, 1993, Nick wrote a letter12 to respondent
Victorey reminding him that the subject property was his despite the
transfer of title. Petitioner prayed for the cancellation of TCT No.
136900 and the issuance of a new certificate of title in her name.
Victorey and Josephine denied the allegation of forgery. They
raise that the action had prescribed and/or barred by

_______________

8 Exh. “E,” id., at p. 197.

9 Exh. “F,” id., at p. 198.
10 Exh. “J,” id., at p. 210.
11 Id., at pp. 1-6.
12 Id., at p. 12.

193

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 193

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

laches. Further they claimed that Betty has no cause of action as

the subject property is the paraphernal property of Eduviges. Lastly,
they assert that the sale was regular, valid and genuine. They
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

asserted that the signatures appearing on the deeds of sale are true
and genuine signatures of the parties including Nick Garbo.13
During the trial, petitioner asserted that Nick left real properties
including the property covered by TCT No. 136900. She claimed
that by virtue of a holographic will14 executed by Nick on December
30, 1980, the subject property was bequeathed to her. In the same
will, he disinherited his daughter, Florence. Petitioner admitted that
the said holographic will was never probated.
In addition, to support her claim that Florence is not entitled to
the property, she presented an Agreement of Partition15 where
Florence is one of the parties. Petitioner contended that Florence is
thus not entitled to the subject property since she already received
her share. Petitioner also admitted that said agreement was never
signed by Florence.
Petitioner presented as witness, Mr. Bienvenido Albacea, a
handwriting expert and retired employee of the NBI, who at the time
of the conduct of the examination of the subject deed of sale was a
Document Examiner II of the NBI. Albacea stated that in 1992, he
was requested to examine the signatures of Nick appearing in the
deeds of sale dated June 17, 1977 and June 15, 1977 and compared
it with the specimen signatures appearing in the Alien Registration
Form No. 3,16 a document17 from the Treasurer’s Office of Pasay
City and several receipts18 issued by Nick to his lessees. After he
con

_______________

13 Id., at pp. 53-60.

14 Id., at pp. 211-213.
15 Id., at pp. 190-196.
16 Id., at p. 254.
17 Id., at p. 206.
18 Id., at pp. 207-209.

194

194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

ducted an examination of the signatures in these documents, he

concluded that the questioned and the standard signatures of Nick
were not written by one and the same person.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

Petitioner also presented as witness Mr. Reynaldo Buenaventura

who testified that he has leased the subject property since 1972 and
has paid the rent to petitioner.
On the other hand, respondent Victorey denied that Florence
forged the signature of Nick Garbo. He admitted that he purchased
the property from Florence for a valid consideration and registered it
late because he had no money. Respondent Victorey presented a
document entitled Affidavit of Waiver19 dated June 17, 1977
executed by Nick stating that Eduviges acquired a parcel of land
covered by TCT No. 17986 and that Nick did not contribute a single
centavo to buy the parcel of land. It further stated that Nick waived
all his rights, title and interest and possession to land in favor of his
wife, Eduviges.
In its August 7, 2006 Decision,20 the RTC dismissed the
complaint for cancellation of title filed by petitioner. The dispositive
portion of the decision states, to wit:

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, after study of the evidence

presented, this Court finds that plaintiff failed to prove by a preponderance
of evidence her cause of action. Accordingly, the complaint for cancellation
of certificate of title is hereby DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence.
Defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed for lack of merit.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.21

_______________

19 Id., at p. 253.
20 Supra note 4.
21 Id., at p. 404.

195

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 195

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

The RTC held that petitioner failed to prove that the signatures of
Nick and Eduviges Garbo were forgeries. The RTC did not give
credence to the testimony of Albacea, holding that courts are not
bound by expert testimonies and that the relative weight and
sufficiency of expert testimony is peculiarly within the province of
the trial court to decide. There was no evidence presented to prove
Nick’s ownership over the subject land. The RTC also noted that
from the time the assailed deed of sale and the affidavit of waiver
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

were executed on June 17, 1977 until the subject property was
registered in Florence Garabato’s name on October 26, 1988, Nick
never instituted a civil case to question the alleged forgery by his
daughter. It was only after Nick’s death that petitioner filed the civil
suit.
The RTC, likewise, did not find any legal ground to declare the
deed of sale between Florence and respondent Victorey invalid.
Petitioner merely questioned the validity of the deed of sale without
any allegations. Petitioner failed to present any evidence to show
why said document should be nullified.
On appeal, the CA affirmed the RTC ruling that petitioner failed
to prove by clear, positive and convincing proof of forgery in Nick’s
signature in the deed of sale. The CA also held that Mr. Albacea’s
opinion as to the truth or falsity of the signature of Nick Garbo is not
binding and conclusive upon the court since the request for
examination of the deed of sale was not upon the order of the trial
court but at the instance of the petitioner. Such examination brings
suspicion as to the bias or prejudice of the examining party.
Moreover, while it was concluded that there was variance in the
compared signatures, such mere variance cannot be considered
conclusive proof that the signature was forged. The CA also
emphasized that the deed of sale being a notarized document bears
the presumption of regularity in its execution.
As to the deed of sale between Florence and Victorey, the CA
agreed with the trial court that aside from presenting the Xerox copy
of the deed of sale, petitioner failed to present any evidence to show
why said document should be nullified. The

196

196 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

appellate court stated that petitioner merely questioned the fact

that the document was notarized long after the death of Florence.
However, the fact that the document was notarized long after
Florence’s death does not mean that her signature was a forgery,
absent any evidence showing such.
Hence, this petition.
Petitioner insists that the signatures of Nick and Eduviges Garbo
on the June 17, 1977 Deed of Sale executed in favor of Florence
were forged. To support her claim, petitioner reproduced for
reference the signatures of Nick in the earlier deed of sale dated June

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 7/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

15, 1977 and compared it with Nick’s signature in the assailed Deed
of Sale and the Affidavit of Waiver both dated June 17, 1977. She
pointed out that Nick’s signatures in the three documents are
congruent and exactly alike in all details and are products of a
tracing process from his alleged signature in the Deed of Sale dated
June 15, 1977. As evidence, petitioner presented the findings of the
handwriting expert, Bienvenido Albacea in the Questioned
Documents Report No. 109-29222 dated February 26, 1992 stating
that the questioned and the standard signatures of Nick Garbo were
not written by one and the same person. In addition, petitioner avers
that since 1972, Nick was the one collecting the rentals on the
subject premises and after his death, herein petitioner.
Petitioner also asserts that a close comparison of the alleged
signature of Eduviges Garbo in the questioned Deed of Sale dated
June 17, 1977 and her alleged signature in the Deed of Sale dated
June 15, 1977 would show that the said two signatures are exactly
alike in all details which would also show that the alleged signature
of Eduviges Garbo in the questioned Deed of Sale dated June 17,
1977 is a product of a tracing process from that of her alleged
signature in the June 15, 1977 Deed of Sale and which would show
by clear and convincing evidence that the alleged signature of
Eduviges

_______________

22 Records, pp. 13-14.

197

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 197

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

Garbo in the questioned Deed of Sale dated June 17, 1977 is fake
or a forgery.
Petitioner also assailed the validity of the subsequent deed of sale
executed between Florence and respondent Victorey and notarized in
1996. Petitioner claims that the said deed of sale although notarized
is a mere private document because Florence could not appear
before the notary public in 1996 because she died in 1992.
Respondents assert that in a petition for review on certiorari,
only questions of law may be raised by the parties and passed upon
by this Court. Respondents submit that the trial court and the CA did
not err in their observation that there is nothing in petitioner’s

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 8/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

testimony which showed forgery committed by the respondents.

Respondents aver that the CA did not err when it found failure on
the part of the petitioner to meet the criteria for determining whether
a signature was forged. Respondents stress that Albacea who though
claimed to have found variance in the compared signatures did not
however point out distinguishing marks, characteristics and
discrepancies in and between the genuine and false specimens of
writing which would ordinarily escape notice or detection by an
untrained observer. According to respondents, petitioner failed to
present evidence or justification to show why the subject document
should be nullified.
The Court is essentially presented the question of whether the
signatures of Nick and Eduviges appearing on the instruments were
forged.
Petition is without merit.
The issue raised by petitioner is essentially factual in nature, the
determination of which is best left to the courts below. Well-settled
is the rule that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts.23 The
function of the Court in petitions for re-

_______________

23 Manila Electric Company v. Vda. de Santiago, 614 Phil. 495, 501; 598 SCRA
315, 321 (2009).

198

198 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

view on certiorari is limited to reviewing errors of law that may

have been committed by the lower courts.24 As a matter of sound
practice and procedure, the Court defers and accords finality to the
factual findings of trial courts, more so, when as here, such findings
are undisturbed by the appellate court.25 Stated otherwise, the Court
refrains from further scrutiny of factual findings of trial courts, more
so when those findings are affirmed by the CA. To do otherwise
would defeat the very essence of Rule 45 and would convert the
Court into a trier of facts, which is not meant to be. Certainly the
rule admits exceptions26 none, however, is applicable to the case at
bar. Absent any application of any of the recognized exceptions, this
Court is bound by the findings of fact by the lower courts.27

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 9/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

In any event, Section 1, Rule 131 of the Rules of Court provides

that the burden of proof is the duty of a party to prove the truth of
his claim or defense, or any fact in issue by the amount of evidence
required by law.28
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by
clear, positive and convincing evidence, the burden of proof lies on
the party alleging forgery.29 One who alleges forgery has the burden
to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence
which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is
offered in opposition to it.30 The

_______________

24 Tapuroc v. Loquellano Vda. de Mende, 541 Phil. 93, 101; 512 SCRA 97, 105
(2007).
25 Id.
26 See Remalante v. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930, 935-936; 158 SCRA 138, 144 (1988).
27 See Calanasan v. Dolorito, G.R. No. 171937, November 25, 2013, 710 SCRA
505, 510.
28 Vitarich Corporation v. Losin, G.R. No. 181560, November 15, 2010, 634
SCRA 671, 684.
29 Heirs of the Late Felix M. Bucton v. Go, G.R. No. 188395, November 20,
2013, 710 SCRA 457, 465.
30 Alfaro v. Court of Appeals, 548 Phil. 202, 216; 519 SCRA 270, 284 (2007).

199

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 199

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between

the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature
of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.31
In Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United
Presbyterian Church, USA,32 the Court identified and explained the
factors involved in the examination and comparison of handwritings:

x x x [T]he 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 signature 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
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 10/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

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 a questioned handwriting, much weight should not be given to
characteristic similarities, or dissimilarities, between that questioned
handwriting and an authentic one.33

_______________

31 Heirs of the Late Felix M. Bucton v. Go, supra note 29 at pp. 465-466.
32 432 Phil. 895; 383 SCRA 326 (2002).
33 Id., at pp. 908-909; p. 336.

200

200 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

The opinion of handwriting experts are not necessarily binding

upon the court, the expert’s function being to place before the court
data upon which the court can form its own opinion.34 This principle
holds true especially when the question involved is mere
handwriting similarity or dissimilarity, which can be determined by
a visual comparison of specimens of the questioned signatures with
those of the currently existing ones.35 A finding of forgery does not
depend entirely on the testimonies of handwriting experts, because
the judge must conduct an independent examination of the
questioned signature in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as
to its authenticity.36
Here, both the RTC and CA found that Albacea did not explain
the manner of examination of the specimen signatures in reaching
his conclusion. Albacea did not point out distinguishing marks,
characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false
specimens of writing which would ordinarily escape notice or
detection by an untrained observer. The Court also aptly ruled that
courts are not bound by expert testimonies especially that the
examination was upon the initiative of Nick and Betty and they had
complete control on what documents and specimens to be examined
by the NBI. Betty, in coming before us, had the onus of showing that

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 11/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

the signatures were forged. She fell short of demonstrating that her
case fell within the limited exceptions for disturbing conclusiveness
of factual findings of lower courts.
The petitioner having not shown any reason for us to disturb the
ruling of the courts a quo, we are constrained to affirm the decision
of the CA.

_______________

34 Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., G.R. No. 189647, February 6, 2012, 665 SCRA 38,
47.
35 Jimenez v. Commission on Ecumenical Mission, United Presbyterian Church,
USA, supra note 32 at p. 907; p. 335.
36 Lorzano v. Tabayag, Jr., supra.

201

VOL. 746, JANUARY 14, 2015 201

Gepulle-Garbo vs. Garabato

WHEREFORE, the petition for review on certiorari is

DENIED. The May 20, 2011 Decision and the January 5, 2012
Resolution of the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 87912 are
AFFIRMED.
With costs against the petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

Velasco, Jr. (Chairperson), Peralta, Reyes and Jardeleza, JJ.,

concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—It is doctrined that opinions of handwriting experts, like

signature analyses of the PNP, are not conclusive upon courts or
tribunals on the issue of authenticity of signatures. (Mercado vs.
Commission on Higher Education, 686 SCRA 446 [2012])
The weight that may be given to opinions of handwriting experts
varies on a case-to-case basis and largely depends on the quality of
the opinion itself as well as the availability of other evidence
directly proving the forgery or authenticity of the questioned
signatures. (Id.)
——o0o——

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 12/13
4/28/2020 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 746

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171c0391ec14ba43f74003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 13/13