Case Digest (G.R. No. 175874)
Facts:
Heirs of Cipriano Trazona, namely: Francisca T. Matbagon, Natividad T. Abadiano, Carlito C. Trazona; and Heirs of Edelberto C. Trazona represented by his daughter Domicina T. Aranas, et al. v. Heirs of Dionisio Canada, namely: Rosita C. Gersalina, Conception C. Geonzon, Daniel Canada, et al., G.R. No. 175874, December 11, 2013, Supreme Court First Division, Sereno, C.J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns an untitled parcel identified as Lot No. 5053-H in Minglanilla, Cebu, purchased from the government in 1940 and covered by Tax Declaration No. 07764 in the name of Cipriano Trazona. Cipriano possessed, cultivated and paid taxes on the lot until his death in 1982; his son Hermogenes continued cultivation from 1972. Adjacent thereto, Dionisio Canada acquired a separate parcel in 1949 but allegedly encroached upon a portion of Lot No. 5053-H; in 1952 Cipriano refused Dionisio’s offer to buy the encroached portion but in 1956 permitted Dionisio to temporarily erect a house on that area.
In 1996–1997 petitioners discovered that Tax Declaration No. 07764 had been cancelled and replaced by Tax Declaration No. 23959 dated 24 June 1996 in the name of Dionisio. This change was premised on a purported Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956, wherein Cipriano allegedly sold a portion of Lot No. 5053-H to Dionisio. Petitioners sought conciliation, then in July 1997 filed a complaint for quieting of title, annulment of deed, cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959, recovery of possession and ownership, damages, and attorneys’ fees, alleging the 1956 deed was forged. Respondents countered that the deed was genuine and claimed damages.
At trial petitioners offered as evidence a handwriting expert, Romeo O. Varona (PNP Crime Laboratory), who testified he examined the original deed at the archives and concluded Cipriano’s signature was forged; petitioners also produced another Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 April 1953 (by Pilar Diaz to Dionisio) covering the very same portion. Respondents presented testimonial evidence (including Dionisio’s son Gorgonio) but failed to produce proof of ownership; they later produced a copy of the 1956 deed obtained from the National Archives.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 57, Cebu City, in a Decision dated 6 April 2004 annulled the 27 June 1956 deed, ordered cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959 and reinstatement of Tax Declaration No. 07764, directed respondents to demolish the house on the disputed portion, and awarded attorneys’ fees and litigation expenses to petitioners. The RTC found the deed likely forged based on the unexplained 40‑year nonproduction, expert comparison of signatures, the prior 1953 deed, tax payment history, possession and fruit enjoyment by petitioners, irregularities in residence-certificate entries in the notarial register, and archival notes about the paper’s condition and date of receipt.
Respondents appealed; the Court of Appeals (CA), Nineteenth Division, by Decision dated 25 May 2006 reversed the RTC, holding petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of regularity attac...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Did the Court of Appeals err in ruling that petitioners failed to overturn the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956?
- Did the document examiner’s testimony and evidence establish, by clear and convincing proof, that Cipriano’s signature on the 1956 deed was forged?
- Were respondents in actual possession of Lot No. 5053‑H such that they were entitled to remain and to remedies available to possessors in good faith?
- Were petitioners entitl...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)