Alcantara-Daus vs. Spouses De Leon

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.