Title
Spouses Aguinaldo vs. Torres, Jr.
Case
G.R. No. 225808
Decision Date
Sep 11, 2017
Spouses Aguinaldo discovered their Tanza, Cavite properties were fraudulently transferred via a forged 1979 deed. Respondent claimed ownership through a 1991 deed, upheld by courts despite improper notarization, requiring petitioners to execute a registrable deed.
null and void
deed of sale
transfer certificates of title

Case Summary (G.R. No. 225808)

Factual Background

The petitioners alleged that they were the registered owners of three lots in Tanza, Cavite, covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-93596, T-87764, and T-87765 and discovered in December 2000 that titles to those lots had been transferred to respondent by virtue of a purported Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979, under which TCT Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 were issued in respondent’s name; they charged that the 1979 deed was a product of fraud, deceit, and stealth. Respondent denied participation in the 1979 document and averred that he acquired the subject properties by a separate Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991, which, he maintained, was validly executed and sufficient to transfer ownership. Respondent additionally pleaded estoppel and prescription as affirmative defenses and counterclaimed for moral damages and attorney’s fees, alleging that the petition was a harassment suit born of an acrimonious relationship.

Trial Court Proceedings

On respondent’s motion, the questioned 1991 deed was submitted to the National Bureau of Investigation Questioned Documents Department, which reported that the signatures of petitioners on the instrument were genuine when compared with their known signatures. The Regional Trial Court examined the totality of evidence, credited the authenticity and due execution of the 1991 deed, considered Nelia’s November 12, 1998 letter admitting the sale, and noted respondent’s payment of real property taxes; accordingly, the RTC dismissed the petitioners’ complaint by Decision dated January 21, 2010 for failure of petitioners to establish their case by a preponderance of evidence and found that the subject properties had been validly sold to respondent.

Court of Appeals Ruling

On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC in its Decision dated May 20, 2015. The CA performed its own handwriting comparison and declared the 1979 deed of sale spurious and incapable of transferring title. Notwithstanding that finding, the CA concluded that the 1991 deed of sale was authentic, relying on the NBI reports, its independent examination of signatures, the November 12, 1998 letter of admission by Nelia, and respondent’s payment of real property taxes as indicia of ownership. The CA observed, however, that the 1991 deed had been improperly notarized — executed by parties in Makati and in the United States but notarized in Tanza, Cavite — thereby stripping the instrument of its public character and rendering it unregistrable; in equity and to effectuate the substance of the transaction, the CA ordered petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent’s favor within thirty days from finality pursuant to Articles 1357 and 1358(1) of the Civil Code. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in its Resolution dated July 14, 2016.

Issue Presented

The essential issue presented to the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in holding that a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent had been proved and in directing petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance within thirty days from finality.

Parties’ Contentions on Appeal

The petitioners contended that both the 1979 and the 1991 deeds were spurious and that the certificates of title issued pursuant to the 1979 deed should be nullified; they asserted that they could not have executed the 1991 instrument because they were in the United States when it was allegedly signed. Respondent maintained that the 1991 deed was authentic and that petitioners were estopped from denying its validity; he relied on the NBI findings, the CA’s own signature comparisons, Nelia’s 1998 admission, and his payment of real property taxes from 1993 to 2003 as evidence of ownership.

Standard of Review and Evidentiary Considerations

The Court emphasized that the veracity of the 1991 deed’s execution and the genuineness of signatures were questions of fact. Absent any of the recognized exceptions that permit reexamination of factual findings by the Supreme Court, the Court would not weigh anew the evidence. The Court reiterated the legal principle that an instrument improperly notarized loses its public character and is reduced to a private document; as a private document its due execution and authenticity must be proved under Section 20, Rule 132, and the genuineness of handwriting may be proved pursuant to Section 22, Rule 132 either by a witness who saw the person write or by a comparison with writings treated as genuine.

Court’s Analysis on Authenticity and Burden of Proof

The Supreme Court found that the CA and the NBI reached concordant conclusions that the petitioners’ questioned signatures on the 1991 deed matched their admitted signatures on other documents. Once the signatures were thus found to be genuine, the burden shifted to petitioners to produce contrary evidence to defeat the presumption of due execution. The Court recalled that forgery is not presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and observed that petitioners offered no corroborative proof beyond their denials. The Court therefore upheld the conclusion that the sale evidenced by the 1991 deed had been established by a preponderance of evidence, especially when considered together with Nelia’s November 12, 1998 admission and respondent’s payment of real property taxes, which jurisprudence treats as a strong indicium of ownership.

Effect of Improper Notarization and Relief Ordered

Although the Court agreed that the 1991 deed was improperly notarized — the instrument had been signed by parties in different jurisdictions but notarized in Tanza, in violation of the notarial officer’s duty to have the parties appear and sign in his presence — it held that the improper notarization only deprived the deed of its public, registrable character but did not void the contractual sale itself. Given that the sale had been substantiated, the Court found equitable and necessary the CA’s directive compelling petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent’s favor within thirty days from finality to effectuate the transfer and to place the title in proper form in accordance with Articles 1357 and 1358(1). The Court explained that making the judgment complete and final by disposing of the controversy on that essential incident avoided mult

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms