ALCANTARA-DAUS
v. SPOUSES DE LEON
G.R. No.
149750 June 16, 2003
FACTS:
Spouses De Leon are the owners of
a parcel of land situated in the Municipality of San Manuel, Pangasinan with an
area of Four Thousand Two Hundred Twelve square meters more or less. Respondent
Hermoso De Leon inherited the said lot from his father Marcelino De Leon by
virtue of a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition. Said lot is covered by Original
Certificate of Title No. 22134 of the Land Records of Pangasinan.
Sometime 1960s, Spouses De Leon engaged the services
of the late Atty. Florencio Juan to take care of the documents of their
properties. They were asked to sign voluminous documents by the
latter. After the death of Atty. Juan, some documents surfaced and
most revealed that their properties had been conveyed by sale or quitclaim to
Hermoso’s brothers and sisters, to Atty. Juan and his sisters, when in truth
and in fact, no such conveyances were ever intended by them. Furthermore,
respondent found out that his signature in the Deed of Extra-judicial
Partition with Quitclaim made in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was forged. They
discovered that the land in question was sold by Rodolfo de Leon to Aurora Alcantara
Spouses De Leon demanded the annulment of the document
and re-conveyance but defendants refused. Petitioner, Aurora Alcantara-Daus
averred that she bought the land in question in good faith and for value on
December 1975 and that she has been in continuous, public, peaceful, open
possession over the same and has been appropriating the produce thereof without objection from anyone.
The RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan rendered its
Decision in favor of herein petitioner. It ruled that
respondents’ claim was barred by laches, because more than 18 years had passed
since the land was sold. It further ruled that since it was a
notarial document, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition in favor of Rodolfo de
Leon was presumptively authentic.
ISSUES:
Whether or not the Deed of Absolute executed by
Rodolfo De Leon over the land in question in favor of petitioner was perfected
and binding upon the parties therein?
Whether or not the evidentiary weight of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim, executed by respondent Hermoso de Leon,
Perlita de Leon and Carlota de Leon in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was overcome by
more than a preponderance of evidence of respondents?
HELD:
First Issue:
NO. It is
during the delivery that the law requires the seller to have the right to
transfer ownership of the thing sold. In
general, a perfected contract of sale cannot be challenged on the ground of the
seller’s non-ownership of the thing sold at the time of the perfection of the
contract.
Further, even after the contract of sale has been
perfected between the parties, its consummation by delivery is yet another
matter. It is through
tradition or delivery that the buyer acquires the real right of ownership over
the thing sold.
Undisputed is the fact that at the time of the sale,
Rodolfo De Leon was not the owner of the land he delivered to petitioner. Thus, the consummation of the contract
and the consequent transfer of ownership would depend on whether he
subsequently acquired ownership of the land in accordance with Article 1434 of
the Civil Code. Therefore, we
need to resolve the issue of the authenticity and the due execution of the
Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim in his favor.
Second Issue:
NO. As a general rule, the due
execution and authenticity of a document must be reasonably established before
it may be admitted in evidence. Notarial
documents, however, may be presented in evidence without further proof of their
authenticity, since the certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence
of the execution of the instrument or document involved. To contradict facts in a notarial
document and the presumption of regularity in its favor, the evidence must be clear,
convincing and more than merely preponderant.
The CA ruled that the signature of
Hermoso De Leon on the Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim was forged. However, this factual finding is in
conflict with that of the RTC. While
normally this Court does not review factual issues, this rule does not apply when there is
a conflict between the holdings of the CA and those of the trial court, as in the present case.
After poring over the records, the SC finds no reason to reverse the factual finding of the appellate court. A comparison of the genuine signatures
of Hermoso De Leon with his
purported signature on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim will readily reveal that the latter is
a forgery. As aptly held by
the CA, such variance cannot be attributed to the age or the mechanical acts of
the person signing.
No comments:
Post a Comment