G.R. No. 211687 - Spouses De Vera vs. Catungal

Spouses Eugenio de Vera and Rosalia Padilla were the purchasers and defendants below.
Fausta Catungal, substituted by her heirs Gaudencio G. Diaz, Sr., Alfonso C. Diaz, and Lourdes C. Lopez, was the plaintiff below.
Vicente Catungal owned two parcels of unregistered land in Macabito, Calasiao, Pangasinan.
Vicente died on December 1, 1944, survived by five children, including Fausta and Genaro Catungal.

On July 23, 1994, Fausta and Genaro executed a Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement Among Heirs with Absolute Sale (the Deed) adjudicating the two parcels and transferring ownership to the Spouses De Vera for P30,000.00.
Fausta affixed her thumbmark in lieu of a signature.
The Deed was signed in the presence of witnesses Teodoro de Vera and Valentino de Vera and was notarized.
New tax declarations were issued in the name of the Spouses De Vera.
After the transaction, the Spouses De Vera allowed Fausta to continue residing on the parcels.

On July 23, 1997, Fausta filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Documents, Recovery of Ownership, Reconveyance, and Damages, with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and/or temporary restraining order.
Fausta alleged that the Spouses De Vera took advantage of her illiteracy and old age and procured her thumbmark through deceit, false pretenses, and fraudulent misrepresentations.
She alleged that petitioners represented the Deed as evidence of indebtedness when it in fact transferred ownership.
Fausta alleged the Deed did not reflect the true agreement, that other heirs were preterited, that she did not understand the Deed, that she did not appear before any notary public, that a community tax certificate was not secured as indicated, and that she remained in actual physical possession.
She claimed anxiety, mental anguish, and wounded feelings and sought moral damages and attorney’s fees.
She alleged that petitioners began installing fences that denied her access to main roads.

Petitioners filed a Motion to Dismiss and an Opposition to the issuance of injunctive relief.
On December 3, 2002, the RTC denied the motion to dismiss and granted a temporary restraining order; the parties later dispensed with a writ of preliminary injunction.
Petitioners filed an Answer asserting the Deed’s validity, compliance with publication and registration of extrajudicial settlement, lack of proof of deceit, Genaro’s participation as co-vendor, and absence of other heirs’ complaints; they prayed for moral and exemplary damages and attorney’s fees.
Fausta and her daughter Lourdes testified for plaintiff; Fausta stated she was illiterate and denied selling or receiving payment; Lourdes corroborated and said she was not present at execution.
Fausta died on October 30, 2002; on June 1, 2004, the case was revived and her heirs were substituted as plaintiffs.
Eugenio and Valentino testified for defendants and admitted Fausta’s illiteracy while asserting no need for Lourdes’ presence as witness.

On July 7, 2009, the RTC rendered judgment dismissing the case for lack of factual and legal bases.
The RTC found Fausta failed to prove by preponderance of evidence that her thumbmark was procured by deceit or fraud.
The RTC held that plaintiff should have presented Genaro to prove undue execution and that the Spouses De Vera established sale and proper execution and notarization; costs were awarded against plaintiffs.
Fausta’s heirs filed a Notice of Appeal on December 8, 2009.

Whether Fausta freely and knowledgeably gave her consent to the Deed, or whether her consent was vitiated by fraud or mistake rendering the Deed voidable or void.

Whether Article 1332 of the Civil Code applies when one party is illiterate and alleges mistake or fraud.
Whether the presumption of due execution and regularity of a notarized document applies despite a...(Subscriber-Only)