Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

MARIANO RIVERA v. EMERITO AQUINO TURIANO

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	GR No. 213455 2015-08-11	JUAN PONCE ENRILE v. PEOPLE BRION, J.
Mere variance of the signatures in different documents cannot be considered as conclusive proof that one is forged. As Rivera v. Turiano[186] teaches:This Court has held that an allegation of forgery and a perfunctory comparison of the signatures by themselves cannot support the claim of forgery, as forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies in the party alleging forgery. Even in cases where the alleged forged signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court still found such evidence insufficient. It must be stressed that the mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same were forged. (emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)
	GR No. 179323 2011-11-28	VICENTE MANZANO v. MARCELINO GARCIA LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.
Insisting on the need to present an expert witness, Vicente points out our ruling in Rivera v. Turiano,[21] wherein we declared: While it is true that the testimonies of handwriting experts are not necessary, however, pursuant to the criteria enunciated in Ladignon, the private respondent must not only show material differences between or among the signatures. In addition, (1) he must demonstrate the extent, kind, and significance of the variation; (2) he must prove that the variation is due to the operation of a different personality and not merely an expected and inevitable variation found in the genuine writing of the same writer; and (3) he must show that the resemblance is a result of a more or less skillful imitation and not merely a habitual and characteristic resemblance which naturally appears in a genuine writing.[22]
	GR No. 174290 2009-01-20	ST. MARY OF WOODS SCHOOL v. OFFICE OF REGISTRY OF DEEDS OF MAKATI CITY CHICO-NAZARIO, J.
Thereafter, on 26 April 1991, ODC executed[20] in favor of petitioner SMWSI a Deed of Sale[21] over the subject property covered by TCT No. 156249. By virtue of the sale, petitioner SMWSI acquired ownership and title over the particular property. Thus, TCT No. 156249 was cancelled and the new TCT No. 175209 was issued in the name of petitioner SMWSI.