Facts:

The case involves Leopoldo Dalumpines as the petitioner and the Court of Appeals, specifically the First Division, along with Domingo Estoya as the respondents. The relevant events date back to August 25, 1989, when Atty. Oscar M. Lagtapon, a notary public, prepared and notarized two important documents: a "Deed of Absolute Sale" and a "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale". The first document indicated that Primitiva Estoya, Saturnina Estoya, Alfonso Estoya, and Domingo Estoya were the owners of Lot 725, as covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-78497, selling a half portion of this lot to the heirs of Norberto Gerial for P6,000. However, the Estoya siblings did not sign the deed where required; their signatures appeared only on the acknowledgment part later. The second document claimed that Norberto Gerial was the sole owner of Lot 725, noting that he died intestate and was succeeded by his heirs, who sold the entire lot to Dalumpines f

...

Facts:

Background of the Transaction and Notarization

• On August 25, 1989, Notary Public Atty. Oscar M. Lagtapon notarized two documents:
• The "Deed of Absolute Sale" purportedly evidencing that Primitiva, Saturnina, Alfonso, and Domingo Estoya, as owners of Lot 725 (under TCT No. T-78497), sold a half portion of the lot to the heirs of Norberto Gerial for P6,000.00.
• The "Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale" which stated that Norberto Gerial, who had died intestate, was succeeded by his heirs and that these heirs sold the entire Lot 725 to Leopoldo Dalumpines for P12,000.00.
• Critical irregularities in the documents included:
• In the Deed of Absolute Sale, the signatures of the Estoyas as vendors were affixed only on the acknowledgement portion and not in the spaces reserved for vendors.
• The two documents contained conflicting statements: one alleging a sale of only half the lot and the other conveying title to the entire lot.

Cancellation and Issuance of Transfer Certificates

• Based on the two deeds, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-78497 was cancelled.
• A new title, TCT No. T-151598, was issued in favor of Leopoldo Dalumpines, despite the inconsistencies in the underlying documents.

Litigation and Court Decisions

• Possession Dispute:
• Dalumpines, having acquired the new transfer certificate, filed a complaint for unlawful detainer against Domingo Estoya, who had been in actual and uninterrupted possession of a portion of Lot 725 since birth.
• The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) in Hinigaran, Negros Occidental, rendered a decision on November 22, 1995, denying the petition for ejectment on the ground of questionable validity of the deeds.
• Appeals:
• Dalumpines appealed the MTC decision to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Himamaylan, which on August 2, 1996, reversed the MTC decision and ordered Estoya to vacate the premises.
• The Court of Appeals (CA) set aside the RTC decision, reinstating the original MTC ruling in favor of Estoya.
• Subsequent Issues Raised:
• Estoya, as a private respondent, later filed a petition for review.
• Dalumpines countered by defending the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale, relying on the testimony of the notary public and a purported acknowledgment by the vendors.
• The record later revealed doubts concerning the execution of the deed, including the absence of proper vendor signatures and contradictory representations within the two documents.
• An issue also arose regarding a clerical error in the petition for review filing by Estoya, which was corrected within an extended period.

Contentions and Inconsistencies

• Petitioner Dalumpines argued that:
• The Deed of Absolute Sale was valid by virtue of the acknowledgment portion containing the signatures of the vendors, which allegedly evidenced their consent.
• The notary public’s affidavit should corroborate the validity of the document.
• Respondent Estoya contended that:
• The absence of signatures in the proper spaces rendered the Deed of Absolute Sale ineffective as a conveyance instrument.
• The conflicting information between the two deeds meant that only half the lot, at most, could have been sold, precluding Dalumpines from claiming full ownership.
• Additional issues included:
• The transformation of the factual basis supporting the claim—from a sale of a half portion to a purported full transfer.
• The procedural impropriety of switching legal theories on appeal.

Issue:

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in:

• Disregarding the testimony of Notary Public Atty. Oscar M. Lagtapon in favor of the private respondent Domingo Estoya regarding the proper execution and consent in the Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Holding that the heirs of the late Norberto Gerial did not validly sell the property in question, thereby undermining Dalumpines’ claim to the entire Lot 725.
• Granting due course to the petition for review filed by Estoya despite the petition being filed out of time due to a clerical error.

• Whether the factual discrepancies in the two notarized documents (the Deed of Absolute Sale and the Declaration of Heirship and Deed of Absolute Sale) invalidate the purported transfer and the resulting issuance of a new transfer certificate.

• Whether, in view of the contradictory evidence, the wrongful issuance of TCT No. T-151598 confers upon Dalumpines any possessory right over the property, particularly against a long-time actual possessor like Estoya.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)