G.R. No. 2123 - Lim-Chingco vs. Terariray

Prior to October 3, 1889, Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco was the owner of the land in question.
On October 3, 1889, in Cagayan de Misamis, a public document was executed evidencing the sale of the land.
The purchaser named in the document was the plaintiff, Vicente Nery Lim-Chingco.
The person who appeared before the justice of the peace (acting also as notary public) and signed the document claimed to be Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco.
Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco was known to be the husband of defendant Crisanta Terariray and the father of the other defendants.
Marcelo died on November 4, 1902, after having maintained possession of the land upon his return from a trip to China.

The justice of the peace noted he did not personally know the seller and required the production of two witnesses who knew him.
One disinterested witness, Nicomedes Ebarle, testified that the person appearing before the court was indeed Marcelo Quintano.
Evidence was presented that Marcelo, along with his wife, left for China in 1888, returned in 1891, resumed possession of the land until his death, and maintained continuous occupation.
The plaintiff claimed that Marcelo returned in the fall of 1889 for the purpose of executing the instruments and obtaining a residence license, staying for about three months before departing for China again.

The plaintiff introduced a contract of lease purportedly executed on December 16, 1891, in Cebu, which allegedly evidenced Marcelo’s temporary lease of the land.
Similar contracts of lease were presented in two other concurrent suits against the same defendants, all executed in Cebu on the same day or the following day.
The court below deduced that these contracts of lease were fictitious, given the logistical improbability of the parties traveling to Cebu solely for executing lease contracts.

The surveyor’s certificate in the record was argued by the plaintiff to have been issued upon an actual survey of the land; however, evidence showed the surveyor’s role was restricted to standardizing the plan’s measurements in accordance with the system in force.
A deed that was recorded in the registry of property, on which the plaintiff based his title, was found by the lower court to be a forgery and hence null and void.

Article 33 of the Mortgage Law was cited, reiterating that records of instruments or contracts that are null do not confer validity.
Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure was considered but held inapplicable regarding an action brought against the heirs of the instrument’s maker.
Evidence offered by the plaintiff, including an inventory of Marcelo’s property prepared by the executor and a protest document by the defendants, was rejected by the lower court on the ground that they did not reliably prove the disposition of the land.
The motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence was properly denied by the court below.

Whether the person appearing before the notary public on October 3, 1889, was indeed Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco.
Whether the contracts of lease (executed in Cebu) presented by the plaintiff were genuine or merely fictitious documents.
The authenticity and legal effect of the deed recorded in the registry of property, particularly given its characterization as a forgery by the lower court.
Whether the recording of a forged deed confers any additional rights to the plaintiff under Article 33 of the Mortgage Law.
The appropriate application of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure concerning actions brought against the heirs of the purported instrument maker.
Whether the additional evidence (the inventory and protest document) should have been admitted to show divestiture of interest in the land.