Case Digest (G.R. No. 194189)
Facts:
Spouses Venancio Almeda and Leonila Laurel-Almeda had nine children, including Ponciano L. Almeda and the petitioners Rafael, Emerlina Almeda-Lirio, Alodia Almeda-Tan, Leticia Almeda-Magno, Norma Almeda-Matias, and Publio Tibi. In 1976, a Power of Attorney executed by Venancio and Leonila authorized Ponciano to sell properties under OCT Nos. O-197 and O-443 registered in Leonila’s name. Venancio died in 1985 and Leonila in 1993; after Leonila’s death, the petitioners filed a notice of adverse claim, and later, on October 10, 1996, they filed Civil Case No. TG-1643 before the RTC of Tagaytay City, Branch 18 for Nullity of Contracts, Partition of Properties and Reconveyance of Title with Damages, alleging that a Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 3, 1978 in Ponciano’s favor was simulated and/or forged, and that their parents did not receive due consideration and did not knowingly consent.
The RTC dismissed the complaint on September 2, 2004, holding that the notarized documents enjoyed the presumption of regularity and due execution and that petitioners failed to prove forgery or simulation by clear and convincing evidence. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed on May 25, 2010, and denied reconsideration on October 13, 2010, prompting this petition for review on certiorari.
Issues:
- Whether the CA erred in ruling that petitioners failed to prove that the October 3, 1978 Deed of Absolute Sale was forged.
- Whether petitioners proved that Venancio and Leonila were mentally incapacitated to execute the deed or that Ponciano exerted undue influence.
- Whether petitioners proved that the deed was simulated for lack or inadequacy of consideration or because the price was unconscionable.
- Whether petitioners could raise belated challenges to the notarization of the deed for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court.
Ruling:
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA and RTC rulings dismissing the complaint.
It held that petitioners did not discharge their burden to overcome the presumption of regularity and due execution of the notarized deed and that Emerlina’s testimony was uncertain and self-serving. It further found no sufficient proof of mental incapacity, undue influence, or simulation/lack of consideration, and ruled that late objections to notarization defects could not be entertained for the first time on appeal.
Ratio:
The Court reiterated that factual findings of the RTC, affirmed by the CA, are generally binding, and that genuineness of a deed of sale is essentially a question of fact. It further ruled that notarized documents enjoy a presumption of regularity and carry evidentiary weight as to due execution, and that forgery is not presumed; the party alleging forgery must prove it with clear, positive, and convincing evidence. Petitioners’ complaint and testimony did not provide a definite and reliable theory of forgery, and the petitioners failed to present strong evidence to defeat the deed’s notarized character; visual comparison of the signatures showed striking similarities that supported the deed’s authenticity and undermined petitioners’ “wild strokes” claim, while also showing that age-related variation did not justify a finding of forgery.
On capacity and undue influence, the Court applied the presumption that a person is fully competent to contract absent satisfactory proof to the contrary and held that mere forgetfulness or advanced age, without evidence of impaired mental faculties at the time of execution, did not establish incapacity. It likewise found that undue influence must be shown by full, clear, and convincing evidence, and petitioners offered only general allegations about Ponciano’s family position and closeness without specific proof of improper advantage and deprivation of free choice.
As to simulation and consideration, the Court held that petitioners’ assertions could not stand where forgery and simulation are inconsistent theories, and where the notarized deed acknowledged the price on its face and had been registered and used to support issuance of title in Ponciano’s name. Petitioners’ reliance on supposed lack of vouchers and claims of unconscionable price based on a later 1992 sale was insufficient to show gross inadequacy in 1978, and belated contentions on territorial limits of notarization and identification documents were not seasonably raised below; treating the deed only as a private instrument did not relieve petitioners of the burden to prove forgery by preponderance of evidence, which the Court found they still failed to meet.
Doctrine:
- Factual findings of the RTC affirmed by the CA are final and conclusive and are generally not reviewed in a Rule 45 petition.
- (Get Pro to unlock 7 more doctrines)