Bernales vs Sambaan

Facts:
Julian was the owner of a lot. He was ambushed. Before he died,
Julian requested his children to gather so that he could make his
last two wishes, one of which is to redeem the subject property
from Myrna, Julian’s daughter. Absalon offered to redeem the lot
but Myrna refused. It was found out that the lot was already in the
name of Myrna by virtue of deed of sale allegedly executed by
Julian in favor of Myrna. Heirs of Julian posit that the signature of
Julian in the deed of sale was forged. However, Myrna denied the
allegation. The NBI, through Atty. Dalisay, examined and confirms
that Julian’s signature was forged.

Issue:
Whether or not Julian’s signature was forged?

Ruling:
We are not swayed by petitioners' allegation that the comparisons
made by the document examiner, the CA and the trial court, of
Guillerma's signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale and her
specimen signatures, violated Section 22, Rule 132 of the Rules of
Court on the authentication of private documents. It should be
borne in mind that in this case respondents were not presenting
evidence to authenticate a private document. On the contrary,
they are challenging the signatures appearing in the Deed of
Absolute Sale.