Case Summary (G.R. No. 78903)
Trial Court Ruling and Appellate Affirmation
On January 17, 1984, the RTC ordered delivery of the parcel to Sabesaje, execution of a public conveyance (or by sheriff), payment of attorney’s fees (₱2,000), litigation expenses (₱500), and dismissal of Dalion’s counterclaim. Dalion appealed; the Court of Appeals, on May 26, 1987, upheld the trial court in toto.
Issues on Appeal
- Whether the private deed of sale is genuine and binding.
- Whether a private instrument suffices to convey real rights in land absent a public document.
Authenticity and Admissibility of the Private Deed
The appellate court accepted the RTC’s findings that witnesses Gerardo Ogsoc and Catalino Espina positively identified Dalion’s signing of Exhibit A. Ogsoc testified he prepared it, copying boundary descriptions and the wife’s name from Exhibit B. Dalion advanced mere denial of signature and alleged forgery but offered no counter-evidence. Under Rule 132, Secs. 21–23, authenticity of private writings may be proved by subscribing or attesting witnesses and handwriting comparison. The court compared specimen signatures from official documents (summons, return card, court orders, open court notice) and found them consistent with the signatures on Exhibit A. The principle that a forger would not append an unnecessary second signature further supported genuineness.
Form Requirement for Transfer of Real Rights
Dalion argued that Art. 1358(1) of the Civil Code demands a public instrument to create or transfer real rights in immovable property. The Supreme Court clarified that the public document requirement is for evidentiary convenience and constructive delivery, not for the contract’s validity. A contract of sale is consensual (Art. 1475) and perfected by mere consent, enabling reciprocal enforcement rights: the vendee may compel transfer (Art. 1458), and the vendor may demand payment.
Delivery and Constructive Transfer
Upon perfection, delivery may be actual or constructive. A public deed constitutes constructive delivery (Art. 1498). The RTC correctly ordered Dalion to execute the formal public conveyance or to have it executed by the sheriff, thereby effecting constructive delivery of the parcel to Sabesaje.
Proper Cause of Action
Although specific performance
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 78903)
Citation and Docket
- 261 Phil. 1033
- G.R. No. 78903
- Decision date: February 28, 1990
- First Division, Supreme Court of the Philippines
Parties
- Petitioners: Spouses Segundo Dalion and Epifania Sabesaje-Dalion
- Respondents: The Honorable Court of Appeals and Ruperto Sabesaje, Jr.
Facts
- In 1960, the Dalions acquired a parcel of land in Panyawan, Sogod, Southern Leyte, by virtue of an “Escritura de Venta Absoluta” (Exhibit B) executed by Saturnina Sabesaje.
- On July 1, 1965, a second document of absolute sale (Exhibit A) purportedly showed Dalion selling the same parcel to his relative, Ruperto Sabesaje, Jr.
- Sabesaje filed suit on May 28, 1973 to recover ownership based on Exhibit A.
- Dalion denied execution of Exhibit A, alleged forgery of his signature, and maintained that the land was conjugal property.
- The Dalions also asserted that Sabesaje’s suit was a preemptive tactic to avoid payment of unpaid commissions for administering other family lands since 1958.
Procedural History
- Trial Court (RTC, Maasin, Southern Leyte) rendered judgment on January 17, 1984:
- Ordered the Dalions to deliver the parcel and to execute a formal public deed in favor of Sabesaje (or have it executed by the sheriff).
- Awarded P2,000 as attorney’s fees and P500 as litigation expenses, with costs of suit.
- Dismissed the Dalions’ counterclaim.
- Court of Appeals, May 26, 1987: Affirmed the RTC decision in toto.
- Supreme Court: Petition for certiorari filed by the Dalions to annul the CA decision.
Issues
- Whether the private document of sale (Exhibit A) is valid and enforceable between the parties despite not being a public instrument.
- Whether the alleged forgery of Dalion’s signature on Exhibit A invalidates the sale.
- Whether the sale of immovable property requires a public document for validity or merely for