Case Digest (G.R. No. 143370)
Facts:
MARIO J. MENDEZONA AND TERESITA M. MENDEZONA, LUIS J. MENDEZONA AND MARICAR L. MENDEZONA AND TERESITA ADAD VDA. DE MENDEZONA, PETITIONERS filed a suit for quieting of title on September 25, 1991 to remove a cloud caused by a Notice of Lis Pendens arising from Special Proceeding No. 1250 (guardianship) after a Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 28, 1989 by Carmen Ozamiz conveyed three parcels subsequently annotated by Transfer Certificate of Title.
The Regional Trial Court of Cebu City ruled for the petitioners on September 23, 1992, but the Court of Appeals reversed, declaring the deed simulated and the vendor mentally incapacitated; the CA denied motions for reconsideration and new trial, prompting this petition to the Supreme Court.
Issues:
- Was the April 28, 1989 Deed of Absolute Sale a simulated contract and thus void?
- Was Carmen Ozamiz mentally incapacitated to execute the deed on April 28, 1989?
- Was Judge Durias’s testimony properly considered *newly discovered evidence* to warrant a new trial?
Ruling:
The Court denied allowance of Judge Durias’s testimony as newly discovered evidence for lack of reasonable diligence in producing it at trial.
The Court granted the petition, reversed and set aside the Court of Appeals' decision, and reinstated the September 23, 1992 Decision of the RTC finding the deed valid, Carmen Ozamiz capacitated at execution, and ordering removal of the lis pendens and recognition of the plaintiffs’ titles.
Ratio:
A notarized instrument enjoys the statutory presumption of regularity of execution and evidentiary weight; those who allege its invalidity must overcome that presumption by clear, convincing, and satisfactory evidence. The respondents failed to prove nonpayment or simulation, and their witnesses’ testimonies were inconsistent and unreliable compared to the notarized deed and issued TCTs. Mental incapacity was not shown by clear and convincing proof, and isolated medical notes did not establish lack of capacity at the time of execution. Judge Durias’s testimony was not newly discovered because it was discoverable with reasonable diligence during the trial.
Doctrine:
- A notarized instrument is presumed regular in execution and entitled to full faith and credit absent clear and convincing proof to the contrary.
- (Get Pro to unlock 5 more doctrines)