G.R. No. L-37631 - Nicolas vs. Court of Appeals

In 1951, respondent Anastacio Madlangsakay, a rice dealer married to Lourdes Manuel, purchased three parcels of land from Felipe Garcia. The combined area of the land was 8,955 square meters, identified as Lot Nos. 6, 7, and 8 of Plan PSU 28714 in Barrio Matungao, Bulacan.
Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-8012 was issued in favor of Anastacio M. Sakay on October 19, 1951.

At the time of the purchase, petitioners were occupying Lot No. 8 (measuring 6,886 square meters) as tenants.
Negotiations for the sale of Lot No. 8 began, and an affidavit dated August 26, 1958, shows that Madlangsakay promised to subdivide and sell the land to the petitioners at P0.70 per square meter.
Despite the initial promise, the negotiations failed, and the relationship between petitioners and Madlangsakay deteriorated, leading to legal confrontations.

On April 26, 1961, petitioners filed an amended complaint in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan (Civil Case No. 2355) to quiet title over Lot No. 8.
Petitioners alleged that:

An affidavit dated August 26, 1958, indicated Madlangsakay’s agreement to sell the property at the stated price.
Following the affidavit, several deeds of sale were executed transferring uniform portions of the property to each petitioner (Santiago Nicolas, Antonio Matawaran, Albino Carreon, Venancio Matawaran, and Amparo Dionisio).
On November 21, 1960, Madlangsakay executed another affidavit to facilitate the registration of these deeds under Act 3344, thereby purportedly making the petitioners owners in fee simple.

Their exercise of ownership (e.g., cutting and clearing bamboo groves near their houses) resulted in criminal cases initiated by Madlangsakay, and
Despite the sale, Madlangsakay continued to encroach on their rights by harvesting and selling the fruits from the property.

The deeds of sale and the affidavit of November 21, 1960, were all forged.
The land is conjugal property registered under the Torrens system, subject to Act 496, and encumbered with a mortgage from the Philippine National Bank, Malolos branch.
Consequently, the land could not be legally alienated without the conformity of his wife.

Dismissed the complaint by finding the deeds of sale and affidavit spurious.
Ordered the cancellation of their registration in the Registry of Deeds.
Awarded actual and moral damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation costs in favor of Madlangsakay.

Affirmed the trial court’s decision on the merits.
Adjusted the amounts for moral damages, the handwriting expert’s fees, and attorney’s fees.

A handwriting expert (Jose del Rosario) compared the questioned signatures with genuine ones, noting several discrepancies (e.g., tremors in the initial stroke of the capital letter “A”, differences in the cross of the letter “t”, omission of the letter “s” in “Anastacio”, and variation in the style of the middle initial “M” and the tail of the letter “y”).
Enlarged photographs of the signatures clearly revealed the hesitancy and patchwork appearance in the questioned documents as opposed to the smooth and fluent genuine signatures.

Two notaries public (Atty. Genaro Arribe and Francisco Saligumba) notarized the deeds of sale.
Atty. Saligumba admitted that he did not know the parties personally and merely notarized the documents based on the petitioners’ representation, without being able to identify Madlangsakay.

The deeds of sale uniformly stated that the property was “not registered under Act 496 or the Spanish Mortgage Law,” which conflicted with the title document.
None of the questioned deeds bore the conformity of Madlangsakay’s wife, a mandatory requirement for the sale of conjugal property.

Extra documentary evidence, including various affidavits, court pleadings, and business records related to the mortgage, reinforced the conclusion of fabrication and irregularities in the preparation and execution of the documents.

Whether the deeds of sale (Exhibits A, B, C, D, E) and the affidavit (Exhibit G) upon which petitioners base their claim are spurious and fraudulent.
Whether the alleged fraudulent documents can effect a legal transfer of title.
Whether the absence of the wife’s consent in the disposition of the conjugal property renders the sale void ab initio, as required by Article 166 of the Civil Code.
Whether the application of Act 3344 for registration in place of the mandatory registration under Act 496 affects the validity of the transfer.