[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
115 views2 pages

Heirs of Trazona Vs Heirs of Canada

The Supreme Court ruled that while notarized documents are presumed to be authentic, this presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, heirs of Cipriano Trazona alleged that a deed of sale bearing his signature was a forgery. An expert witness testified that the signature was forged, and the trial court independently observed evidence of forgery. Additionally, the paper was noted to be whiter than contemporaneous documents, indicating it was not as old as claimed. This clear and convincing evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of authenticity for the notarized document.

Uploaded by

MP Manliclic
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
115 views2 pages

Heirs of Trazona Vs Heirs of Canada

The Supreme Court ruled that while notarized documents are presumed to be authentic, this presumption can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. In this case, heirs of Cipriano Trazona alleged that a deed of sale bearing his signature was a forgery. An expert witness testified that the signature was forged, and the trial court independently observed evidence of forgery. Additionally, the paper was noted to be whiter than contemporaneous documents, indicating it was not as old as claimed. This clear and convincing evidence was sufficient to overcome the presumption of authenticity for the notarized document.

Uploaded by

MP Manliclic
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

TOPIC: BURDEN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTIONS

Heirs of Trazona vs. Heirs of Canada


GR No. 175874

DOCTRINE: While notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this


presumption is disputable. They can be contradicted by evidence that is clear,
convincing, and more than merely preponderant.

FACTS: Cipriano Trazona owned Lot No. 5053–H. Sometime in 1997, when the heirs of
Cipriano, herein petitioners, tried to secure a copy of Tax Declaration No. 07764, they
were informed that Tax Declaration No. 07764 had been cancelled and, in lieu thereof,
Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued in the name of Dionisio, the owner of the
property adjacent to Cipriano’s lot. Apparently, respondents had caused the issuance of
Tax Declaration No. 23959 by submitting a Deed of Absolute Sale supposedly executed
by Cipriano in favor of Dionisio. The deed of sale covers a portion of Cipriano’s property
which was encroached upon by Dioniso during the former’s lifetime, but the new tax
declaration issued covers the whole property of Cipriano. Consequently, petitioners filed
a Complaint against respondents for cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959.
Petitioners alleged therein that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956 was a
forgery.

During the trial, petitioners presented an expert witness testifying to the forgery of
Cipriano’s signature on the assailed deed. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners. On appeal,
CA ruled that petitioners had failed to prove by requisite evidence their allegation that
the assailed deed was a forgery. The deed, being a notarized document, enjoyed the
presumption of authenticity and due execution and that the deed was an ancient
document that remained unaltered after so many years, bodes well for its authenticity.

ISSUE: Whether or not the presumption of regularity of a notarized ancient document


may be assailed by the testimony of an expert witness and independent observation of
the trial court?

HELD: Yes. It is true that notarized documents are accorded evidentiary weight as
regards their due execution. Nevertheless, while notarized documents enjoy the
presumption of regularity, this presumption is disputable. They can be contradicted by
evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. In this case,
clear and convincing evidence that is enough to overturn the presumption of regularity
of the assailed deed
was presented. First, the document examiner determined that the signature of Cipriano
in theassailed deed had been forged. No issue has been raised about his expertise.
Second, the RTC did not just rely on expert testimony in ruling that the signature was
forged. It likewise supported its finding that the signature was forged through
independent observation. Lastly, when the record management analyst from the Bureau
of Archives presented the assailed deed, the paper was noted to be white, while its
supposed contemporaries in the bunch from where it was taken had turned yellow with
age.

You might also like