G.R. No. 188395 - HEIRS OF THE LATE FELIX M. BUCTON, NAMELY: NICANORA G. BUCTON, ERLINDA BUCTON-EBLAMO, AGNES BUCTON-LUGOD, WILMA BUCTON-YRAY AND DON G. BUCTON, VS. SPOUSES GONZALO AND TRINIDAD GO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the court finds for the defendants. Accordingly, the case is hereby dismissed as it is hereby dismissed on grounds that plaintiffs were barred by laches and prescription. With costs against plaintiffs. [13] Elevated by the Heirs of Felix on appeal before the Court of Appeals, under CA-G.R. CV No. 00888-MIN, the foregoing decision was affirmed by the appellate court in its 27 May 2009 Decision. [14] In upholding the dismissal of the complaint, the Court of Appeals found that the evidence adduced by the Heirs of Felix failed to preponderantly establish that the questioned SPA was a forgery. [15] The appellate court further declared that the Spouses Go were innocent purchasers for value who acquired the property without any knowledge that the right of Belisario as attorney-in-fact was merely simulated. [16] It determined that the Spouses Go can rely in good faith on the face of the certificate of title, and in the absence of any sign that might arouse suspicion, the buyers are under no obligation to undertake further investigation. [17] The dispositive portion of the assailed Court of Appeals Decision reads: WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the instant appeal is hereby DISMISSED and the assailed June 25, 2005 Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Misamis Oriental, Branch 17, 10th Judicial Region, Cagayan de Oro City, in Civil Case No. 96-093, is hereby AFFIRMED in toto. [18] The Heirs of Felix are now before this Court assailing the above-quoted Court of Appeals Decision and raising the following issues: The Issues I. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN RULING THAT THE SIGNATURES OF THE SPOUSES BUCTON IN THE SPA WERE NOT FORGED; II. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN FINDING THAT THE SPOUSES GO ARE INNOCENT PURCHASERS FOR VALUE; AND III. WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED WHEN IT HELD THAT ACTION OF THE HEIRS OF FELIX ARE ALREADY BARRED BY LACHES AND PRESCRIPTION. [19] The Courts Ruling We find the petition impressed with merit. [20] As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in the instrument is the instrument itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged. [21] To prove forgery, the Heirs of Felix offered the testimony of an expert witness, Eliodoro Constantino (Constantino) of the National Bureau of Investigation who testified that significant differences existed between the signatures of Felix on the standard documents from the one found in the SPA of Belisario. His testimony, however, was disregarded both by the RTC and the Court of Appeals which upheld t