Case Summary (G.R. No. 87880)
Key Dates
- May–July 2000: Agreement to use owner’s duplicate TCT as collateral; promise of P300,000 share
- July 2, 2000: Petitioner forced to sign folded document
- November 19, 2002: Survey of property reveals half sold to respondent for P200,000
- December 20, 2007: RTC decision dismissing petition
- February 21, 2011: CA decision affirming RTC
- May 6, 2011: CA resolution denying motion for reconsideration
- March 19, 2018: SC decision
Applicable Law
- 1987 Philippine Constitution
- Civil Code provisions on contracts (Art. 1159: force of law; Art. 1358: formality of public document)
- Rules on public vs. private instruments and presumption of regularity
Factual Background
Petitioners alleged ownership of the subject property and that respondent borrowed their owner’s duplicate title as loan security. They contended respondent promised P300,000 from the loan proceeds but instead caused them to sign a folded paper without opportunity to read it. Later they discovered a notarized deed of sale conveying half the property to respondent for P200,000. Barangay conciliation failed. Petitioners prayed for annulment of the spurious deed, cancellation of its annotation on TCT No. 25044, return of the duplicate title, and damages. Respondent denied fraud, asserted a valid sale, and invoked presumption of regularity of the public document.
RTC Decision
The Regional Trial Court found petitioners failed to overcome the prima facie evidence of a public deed of sale. Witness testimonies showed they signed but did not read the deed and received no payment, yet public-document presumption prevailed. The court ruled that terms of a notarized contract are conclusive; parol evidence cannot vary it. Civil Code Art. 1159 binds parties to their contracts. The complaint was dismissed for insufficiency of evidence.
Court of Appeals Decision
The CA affirmed. It emphasized that notarized instruments enjoy a presumption of regularity rebuttable only by clear, convincing, and more-than-preponderant evidence. Educated parties cannot claim ignorance of the word “vendor” nor blame poor lighting for failure to read. Even if illiterate, they were negligent in not having the contract explained. Defects such as a single community tax certificate or absence of the notary as witness do not vitiate validity but at most the evidentiary weight. Parol evidence must be clear and convincing, which petitioners failed to present. The CA denied the appeal and subsequent motion for reconsideration.
Issues on Appeal
A. Whether the CA erred in applying the presumption of regularity to a deed of sale allegedly notarized with irregularities.
B. Whether the CA erred in upholding the validity of the contract of sale despite claims of fraud and absence of real consent.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The deed was not signed before the notary and notarized in petitioners’ absence.
- Only one community tax certificate was used for both spouses.
- Respondent did not produce the notary public to testify.
- Petitioners were deceived into signing a secured-loan authorization, not a deed of sale.
- No proof of payment of the P200,000 consideration.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Notarization Defects Do Not Void Sale
– Under Civil Code Art. 1358, lack of public formality affects only evidentiary weight, reducing a deed to a private instrum
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 87880)
Procedural History
- July 2004: Norma M. Diampoc and Wilbur L. Diampoc filed a Complaint for annulment of deed of sale and recovery of duplicate original copy of title, with damages, before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasig City, Branch 268, Civil Case No. 70076.
- December 20, 2007: RTC rendered Decision dismissing the complaint for insufficiency of evidence.
- February 21, 2011: Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 92453 denied the Diampocs’ appeal and affirmed the RTC Decision.
- May 6, 2011: CA denied the Diampocs’ Motion for Reconsideration via Resolution.
- January 25, 2016: Supreme Court resolved to dispense with respondent’s comment and to decide the case on the basis of the record.
- March 19, 2018: Supreme Court promulgated its Decision in G.R. No. 200383.
Factual Antecedents
- The Diampocs owned a 174-square-meter parcel in Signal Village, Taguig City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 25044.
- Jessie Buenaventura requested to borrow the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT 25044 as collateral for a ₱1,000,000 bank loan and promised to remit ₱300,000 to the Diampocs.
- On July 2, 2000, the Diampocs signed a folded document without reading it; no copy was given to them.
- They later discovered that an 87-sqm portion of their land had been conveyed to Buenaventura by a purported Deed of Sale for ₱200,000.
- Barangay conciliation proceedings failed; Diampocs alleged fraud, deceit, and spurious notarization of the deed.
- The Diampocs prayed for annulment of the deed, cancellation of its annotation on TCT 25044, return of their duplicate title, attorney’s fees, and costs.
RTC Decision
- Plaintiffs presented themselves as witnesses, testifying to ownership, agreement with Buenaventura, forced signing without reading, absence before notary, and non-receipt of ₱200,000.
- Defendant testified that the Diampocs sold the 87-sqm portion by a notarized Deed of Sale on July 6, 2000, and that she paid ₱200,000 prior to notarization.
- RTC held a notarized deed of sale is a public document and prima facie evidence of its contents.
- Cited Article 1159 of the Civil Code on the binding force of contracts.