G.R. No. 141323 - Pelayo vs. Perez

David Pelayo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 11, 1988, conveying two parcels of agricultural land located in Panabo, Davao (portions of Lot 4192, Cad. 276, covered by OCT P-16873) to Melki Perez.
Loreza Pelayo, the wife of David Pelayo, witnessed the execution of the deed. However, she signed only on the third page in the designated witnesses’ space.
Perez’s application for the registration of the deed with the Office of the Register of Deeds in Tagum was denied because of the incomplete signature of Loreza on the earlier pages.

Following the refusal of Loreza to provide her additional signatures on the first and second pages, Perez initiated a complaint for specific performance on August 8, 1991 against David and Loreza Pelayo.
The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the deed was not registered within three months after the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6656), which they argued rendered the deed unenforceable.
The trial court dismissed the complaint based on the registration requirement of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6656.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court’s dismissal, ruling that by signing as a witness, Loreza Pelayo manifested her knowledge and consent regarding the sale.
The CA held that there was sufficient evidence of consideration for the transaction, noting that the sum of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and the services rendered by Perez were adequate.
In their respective submissions, the defendants argued that the deed was simulated, lacked true marital consent, and was executed without actual consideration. Perez, on the other hand, contended that the deed was a proper conveyance of property based on his role as attorney-in-fact and the agreed services.
The CA, after considering the facts and evidence, affirmed that the deed was valid under R.A. No. 6656 and that the actions of the parties implied consent despite technical irregularities.
Petitioners subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by the CA based on tardiness and the failure to raise any substantive merit on appeal.

The CA decision, including its interpretation of R.A. No. 6656 and the subsequent findings on consideration and marital consent, became final and executory.
The Supreme Court resolved the petition for review on certiorari, relying on the principle of law of the case, and examined issues paralleling the registration requirement, lack of explicit marital consent, prohibition under Article 1491(2) of the Civil Code, and the sufficiency of consideration.

Whether the deed of sale is null and void for failing to comply with the registration requirement under R.A. No. 6656, which mandates registration within three months after the effectivity of the law.
Whether the deed is invalid due to the alleged lack of marital consent, given that Loreza Pelayo signed only as a witness and not on all pages of the document.
Whether the deed is simulated or fictitious and prohibited under Article 1491(2) of the Civil Code, which restricts certain transactions by agents purchasing property from their principals without consent.
Whether the consideration stated in the deed—comprising respondent’s services and the cash sum of P10,000.00—is sufficient and genuine, or whether it renders the transaction void for inadequacy.