Case Summary (G.R. No. 225808)
Key Dates and Procedural History
Complaint filed March 3, 2003. Dispute centers on a purported Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979 (the 1979 deed) and an alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991 (the 1991 deed). RTC dismissed the complaint by Decision dated January 21, 2010. The Court of Appeals denied the appeal by Decision dated May 20, 2015 and denied reconsideration on July 14, 2016. The Supreme Court issued the present ruling affirming the CA decision with modification.
Applicable Law and Rules
Governing constitution: 1987 Philippine Constitution (case decided after 1990). Relevant statutes and rules cited: Civil Code Articles 1357 and 1358(1) (form and public instrument requirement for conveyances of real property); Section 12, PD No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) on registrability; Rules of Court, Rule 132 Section 20 (proof of private documents) and Section 22 (proof of genuineness of handwriting); Rule 39 Section 10(a) on execution of judgments for specific acts; evidentiary standards and jurisprudence on forgery and weight of documentary and expert evidence.
Factual Allegations by Petitioners
Petitioners asserted they were registered owners of three lots in Tanza, Cavite. They discovered in December 2000 that titles to the subject lots had been transferred to respondent purportedly by the 1979 deed, which they alleged was obtained by fraud, deceit, and stealth. They sought annulment of sale, cancellation of respondent’s titles, and damages.
Respondent’s Position and Counterclaims
Respondent denied involvement in the 1979 deed but claimed a valid sale from petitioners to him by the 1991 deed of sale, for which he obtained TCT Nos. T-305318–320. He argued petitioners were estopped from denying his title because they caused registration of the deed, and that the action was time‑barred as filed beyond four years from discovery, reckoned from registration of the deed on March 26, 1991. He counterclaimed for moral damages and attorney’s fees, alleging harassment.
Evidentiary Proceedings and Expert Examination
At respondent’s motion, the 1991 deed was submitted to the NBI Questioned Documents Department. NBI reports concluded petitioners’ questioned signatures on the 1991 deed matched their sample signatures. The CA also conducted an independent examination of signatures on the 1991 deed and other pertinent documents and reached the same conclusion.
RTC Findings
The RTC found petitioners failed to prove their case by preponderance of evidence and dismissed the complaint. The trial court held there was a valid sale to respondent, noting additionally Nelia’s November 12, 1998 letter admitting the sale.
Court of Appeals Findings
The CA conducted signature examinations and declared the 1979 deed spurious (signatures on it differed from petitioners’ genuine signatures) and therefore did not transfer title. However, the CA found the 1991 deed’s signatures genuine (supported by NBI and independent comparison), Nelia’s 1998 letter admitting sale, and respondent’s payment of real property taxes (1993–2003) as indicia of ownership. The CA observed that the 1991 deed was improperly notarized because it was signed by parties in different jurisdictions (petitioners in the USA; respondent and a witness in Makati) yet notarized in Tanza, Cavite, and therefore unregistrable. Despite this, the CA ordered petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent’s favor within 30 days from finality, invoking Articles 1357 and 1358(1).
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in (a) holding that a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent was established, and (b) directing petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent’s favor despite the 1991 deed being improperly notarized and thus unregistrable.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on the 1979 Deed and Related Titles
The Supreme Court agreed with the CA that the 1979 deed was spurious. The Court modified the CA ruling by expressly declaring the 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale and the attendant TCT Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 in respondent’s name null and void. The Court noted that while the CA had found the 1979 deed spurious, it failed to nullify the titles issued pursuant to that deed; the Supreme Court corrected this by declaring those titles void.
Supreme Court’s Ruling on the 1991 Deed: Authenticity and Notarial Defect
On the 1991 deed, the Supreme Court treated the question of authenticity as a factual matter. It recognized the CA’s and NBI’s findings that petitioners’ signatures on the 1991 deed were genuine. The Court emphasized that the 1991 deed was improperly notarized because parties signed in different places but the notarial act occurred in Tanza without personal appearance of all signatories before the notary. This failure violated the notarial officer’s duty to require personal appearance, signing in the notary’s presence, and affirmation of the instrument’s contents. The improper notarization stripped the instrument of its public character and rendered it a private document subject to proof under Section 20, Rule 132.
Evidentiary Rules Applied and Burden of Proof
Because the 1991 deed was a private instrument due to notarial impropriety, the Court applied Section 20, Rule 132 requiring proof of due execution and authenticity either by direct witness to execution or by evidence of genuineness of handwriting. Section 22, Rule 132 sets out modes of proving handwriting genuineness, including comparison with admitted or proved genuine writings. The CA’s independent signature comparison and the NBI reports established the genuineness of petitioners’ signatures on the 1991 deed, shifting to petitioners the burden to prove forgery or nonexecution. The Court reiterated the rule that forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence; petitioners’ mere denial of their signatures, without corroboration, was insufficient.
Effect of Notarial Defect on Registrability and Remedy Ordered
Although the improper notarization rendered the 1991 deed unregistrable (notarial acknowledgment being essential for registrability under PD No. 1529 and related law), the Court held that the substantive sale in favor of respondent had been established. Considering Articles 1357 and 1358(1) — which allow parties to compel observance of required public form once a contract is perfected — the Court affirmed the CA’s equitable directive ordering petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent’s favor within 30 days from finality of the decision. The Court explained this remedy is appropriate to effectuate the judgment and avoid multiplicity of suits; it constitutes a necessary consequence of upholding the validity of the sale.
Consequences fo
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 225808)
Case Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reported at 817 Phil. 1179; 114 OG No. 25, 4415 (June 18, 2018), Second Division, G.R. No. 225808, September 11, 2017.
- Petition for review on certiorari filed by Spouses Edgardo M. Aguinaldo and Nelia T. Torres-Aguinaldo (petitioners) assailing:
- Court of Appeals (CA) Decision dated May 20, 2015 (CA-G.R. CV No. 96014) that affirmed the RTC decision and ordered petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of respondent within 30 days from finality; and
- CA Resolution dated July 14, 2016 denying petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- RTC (Regional Trial Court, Trece Martires City, Branch 23) Decision dated January 21, 2010 dismissed petitioners’ complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, and damages. CA affirmed with modifications. Supreme Court (Perlas-Bernabe, J.) issued the present decision.
Parties
- Petitioners: Spouses Edgardo M. Aguinaldo and Nelia T. Torres-Aguinaldo (collectively, petitioners; Nelia individually referenced).
- Respondent: Artemio T. Torres, Jr. (noted in source as substituted by his heirs in subsequent proceedings; substitution referenced in CA Resolution dated July 14, 2016).
- Intervening references: witness Lalaine Bucapal; National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) Questioned Documents Department involved in handwriting examination.
Subject Property and Titles
- Three (3) lots situated in Tanza, Cavite (referred to as the subject properties).
- Petitioners alleged registered owners of the three lots covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-93596, T-87764, and T-87765.
- Respondent was issued Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 (the subject certificates of title) purportedly arising from an alleged Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979 (the 1979 deed of sale).
Complaint and Counterclaim (Pleadings and Allegations)
- Petitioners’ complaint (filed March 3, 2003) sought annulment of sale, cancellation of title, and damages, alleging the 1979 deed of sale was procured by respondent in bad faith by fraud, deceit and stealth.
- Respondent’s Answer with Counterclaim (filed August 18, 2003):
- Denied involvement in execution of 1979 deed; asserted that the subject properties were validly sold to him by petitioners through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991 (the 1991 deed of sale).
- Alleged petitioners themselves caused registration of the 1979 deed and transfer of title in his name, invoking estoppel against petitioners’ attack on his title.
- Pleaded prescription: suit filed beyond four years from discovery of alleged fraud, reckoned from registration of the 1991 deed on March 26, 1991.
- Counterclaimed for moral damages and attorney’s fees alleging the suit was baseless and intended to harass given acrimonious relationship.
Investigative and Evidentiary Acts
- Respondent moved (Motion to Issue an Order dated April 7, 2006) to have the 1991 deed of sale transmitted to the NBI Questioned Documents Department for examination of genuineness.
- NBI submitted reports concluding that petitioners’ questioned signatures on the 1991 deed matched their sample signatures; i.e., signatures were written by the same persons.
- The CA also conducted its own independent examination of petitioners’ signatures on the 1991 deed and other submitted documents and reached conclusions consistent with the NBI findings.
RTC Findings and Ruling
- RTC Decision dated January 21, 2010 dismissed petitioners’ complaint for failure to establish their claim by preponderance of evidence.
- RTC found that petitioners validly sold the subject properties to respondent.
- RTC considered Nelia’s admission of the sale in her letter dated November 12, 1998 (November 12, 1998 letter) addressed to respondent.
CA Ruling (May 20, 2015) — Findings and Directives
- CA denied petitioners’ appeal and upheld RTC’s findings and conclusions, with the following specifics:
- Declared the 1979 deed of sale spurious after CA’s signature examination and thus held that 1979 deed did not transfer title to respondent.
- Nonetheless, found a valid sale to respondent by virtue of the 1991 deed of sale based on:
- Petitioners’ failure to rebut NBI conclusion and the CA’s independent signature comparison showing genuineness of petitioners’ signatures on the 1991 deed;
- Nelia’s November 12, 1998 letter admitting the sale;
- Respondent’s payment of real property taxes on the subject properties from 1993 to 2003 as indicia of ownership and possession in the concept of an owner.
- Observed the 1991 deed of sale had improper notarization: signed by respondent and witness Bucapal in Makati City, petitioners signed in the USA, but notarization occurred in Tanza, Cavite — violating notarial requirement that the party acknowledging a document appear before and sign in presence of the notary.
- Concluded the 1991 deed, though authentic as to signatures, was improperly notarized and therefore unregistrable.
- Directed petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of respondent within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision, invoking Articles 1357 and 1358(1) of the Civil Code as authority to compel form compliance.
- CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration in Resolution dated July 14, 2016.
Issue Presented to the Supreme Court
- Whether the CA committed reversible error in ruling that there was a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent and in directing petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent’s favor within thirty (30) days from finality of the decision.
Standard of Review and Threshold Observations
- The central factual issue: authenticity of the 1991 deed of sale — a question of fact rather than law (citing Spouses Bernales v. Heirs of Sambaan).
- The Supreme Court’s role: not to reweigh evidence or reassess credibility absent recognized exceptions permitting such intervention (citing Almagro v. Spouses Amaya, Sr. and listing recognized exceptions).
- Court noted that findings of authenticity were supported by independent CA examination and NBI analysis; petitioners failed to prove forgery with clear, positive, and convincing evidence as required.
Analysis on the 1979 Deed of Sale and Subject Certificates of Title
- Court observed the complaint specifically sought nullification of the 1979