Almeda v. Heirs of Ponciano Almeda, G.R. No.

194189, September 14, 2017

FACTS:
Sps Almeda executed a Power of Attorney granting Ponciano (one of their children), among others,
the authority to sell their 2 parcels of land.
Rafael, Emerlina, Alodia, Leticia and Norma (the other children) filed a Complaint for Nullity of
Contracts, Partition of Properties and Reconveyance of Titles with Damages in RTC of Tagaytay
City against Ponciano and his wife Eufemia, et al. as unwilling plaintiffs.
They claimed that Ponciano, taking advantage of his being the eldest child and his close
relationship with their parents, caused the simulation and forgery of the 2 Deeds of Absolute Sale.
Resultantly, several TCTs were issued to Ponciano. But they would not claim rights and interest
legally transferred to third parties.
Petitioners prayed the Deed in favor of Ponciano be declared null and void.
After Ponciano's heirs/subs failed to present their evidence despite several opportunities given
them, RTC rendered a decision.
RTC dismissed the complaint. Petitioners failed to present any proof of simulation or forgery of the
subject documents. CA affirmed.

ISSUE: W/N the petitioners’ evidence should be considered of greater weight since respondents
did not at even present any evidence. - NO.

HELD: Petition Denied.

A notarized Deed of Absolute Sale has in its favor the presumption of regularity. It is admissible in
evidence without further proof of its authenticity and is entitled to full faith and credit upon its face.
Forgery is not presumed. An allegation of forgery must be proved by clear, positive and convincing
evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. Petitioners failed to discharge
this burden.
The Complaint did not even allege in definite terms that Sps Almeda's signatures on the 1978
Deed were forged.
Emerlina's testimony (one of the children), upon which petitioners' case was built, is unclear and
uncertain as to the supposed forgery. She had two alternative answers to the question of forgery:
first, that Venancio and Leonila did not sign the document,
second, that it is possible that they signed it but without knowing the consequences of their action.
Petitioners argued that their evidence is of greater weight since private respondents did not at all
present any evidence, particularly, to prove the notarization of the 1978 Deed and the genuineness
of their parents' signatures thereon.
"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. He who asserts, not he who denies, must prove."
The party making allegations has the burden of proving them by a preponderance of evidence. The
parties must rely on the strength of their own evidence and not upon the weakness of the defense
offered by their opponent.
Thus, petitioners' evidence must stand on its own merit and must be scrutinized for veracity and
probative value. It is not rendered conclusive simply because it was not met with evidence from the
defense.
In determining where the preponderance or superior weight of evidence on the issues involved lies,
the court may consider all the facts and circumstances of the case, the witnesses' manner of
testifying, their intelligence, their means and opportunity of knowing the facts to which [they] are
testifying, the nature of the facts to which they testify, the probability or improbability of their
testimony, their interest or want of interest, and also their personal credibility.
Even by the standard of preponderance of evidence, petitioners have failed to establish the alleged
simulation or forgery of the 1978 Deed.
Petitioners' claim of forgery is built on Emerlina's testimony which we have found to be both
uncertain and self-serving.
Petitioners have likewise failed to substantiate their claims that their parents were mentally
incapable of executing the 1978 Deed, that Ponciano exerted undue influence on their parents,
and that there was no consideration for the sale or that it was unconscionable.