G.R. No. 172167 - SOLEDAD E. DIZON, CORAZON R. ESPINOSA, CYNTHIA R. ESPINOSA, JENNIFER R. ESPINOSA, JULIE R. ESPINOSA, GELACIO R. ESPINOSA, JR., AND JOSELITO R. ESPINOSA, VS. RODRIGO G. TUAZON AND ESTRELLA M. TUAZON.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly ordered the cancellation of the titles to the properties in respondents' names and the restoration of the former titles. It also ordered petitioners to pay the litigation expenses and attorney's fees. [13] Respondents appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which in turn reversed the decision of the trial court. [14] According to the Court of Appeals, petitioners were unable to establish the charge of forgery by a preponderance of evidence. Before us, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when it reversed the judgment of the trial court. They claim that it disregarded the evaluation made by the trial court and instead gave credence to the testimonies of the witnesses who testified that they saw Segundo sign the questioned deed. [15] Moreover, the appellate court allegedly failed to consider petitioners' evidence proving the charge of falsification, to wit: (1) the NBI report which stated that the signatures "S. Espinosa" and "Segundo Espinosa" were written by two different persons; (2) the combined testimony of petitioner Soledad and Theodore Espinosa (Theodore), Segundo's grandson, that the signature of Segundo was falsified; (3) the memorandum of the proceedings before the Office of the Barangay Lupon of Tibag, Tarlac which established the fact that Segundo had already questioned the genuiness of his signature as early as 27 September 1989; and (4) the fact that despite the alleged sale, the tenants on the land continued paying rentals to them. [16] Petitioners also claim that the Court of Appeals misconstrued respondents' possession of the PNB receipts as proof of their having purchased the property for valuable consideration, because they gained access to the said receipts only after Segundo and the mother of Estrella had started to live together. [17] For the same reason, according to petitioners, respondents gained access to the owner's copies of TCT No. 38284 and OCT No. 0-279 and thus, it could not be said that Segundo had voluntarily given the documents to them. [18] For their part, respondents claim that petitioners gave a constricted statement of the matters involved since they relied completely and only on the findings of the trial court. [19] They defend the decision of the Court of Appeals, noting that the latter has made a thorough evaluation and analysis of the documentary evidence and the testimonies of the witnesses. [20] The determination of whether Segundo's signature was forged is a question of fact which calls for a review of the evidence presented by the parties. While such determination is usually not within the Court's domain, we will delve into factual issues in this case due to the conflicting findings of the Court of Appeals and of the trial court. [21] In ruling that Segundo's signature in the subject documents is a forgery, the trial court based its conclusion on the NBI Report [22] which stated that the abbreviated signature in the Agreement of Subdivision and the standard sample sig