Aguinaldo vs. Torres

A valid sale of real property exists despite the improper notarization of the deed, which merely strips it of its public character and reduces it to a private instrument; the improper notarization does not affect the validity of the sale itself but renders the deed unregistrable, allowing the court to compel the execution of a registrable deed under Articles 1357 and 1358(1) of the Civil Code to give effect to the parties' contractual obligations.

Spouses Edgardo M. Aguinaldo and Nelia T. Torres-Aguinaldo were the registered owners of three parcels of land in Tanza, Cavite covered by Transfer Certificates of Title. In December 2000, they discovered that the titles had been transferred to respondent Artemio T. Torres, Jr. allegedly through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979, which they claimed was executed through fraud and deceit. The respondent, however, asserted that the properties were validly sold to him through a different Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991.

• Petitioners were registered owners of three lots covered by TCT Nos. T-93596, T-87764, and T-87765 situated in Tanza, Cavite.
• In December 2000, petitioners discovered that the titles were transferred to respondent allegedly through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979 (1979 deed), for which TCT Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 were issued.
• Petitioners claimed the 1979 deed was executed through fraud, deceit, and stealth without their knowledge.
• Respondent denied participation in the 1979 deed and claimed valid sale through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991 (1991 deed).
• The 1991 deed was signed by respondent and witness Lalaine Bucapal in Makati City and by petitioners in the United States of America, but was notarized in Tanza, Cavite.
• National Bureau of Investigation examination concluded that petitioners' signatures on the 1991 deed were genuine.
• Nelia Torres-Aguinaldo admitted the existence of the sale in her letter dated November 12, 1998 to respondent.
• Respondent paid real property taxes on the subject properties from 1993 to 2003.
• The CA conducted its own independent examination of petitioners' signatures and found them genuine.

• The 1979 deed of sale was spurious, executed through fraud, deceit, and stealth, and did not transfer title to respondent.
• They could not have signed the 1991 deed of sale as they were in the United States when it was supposedly executed.
• The 1991 deed was improperly notarized and therefore invalid.
• The respondent's title should be cancelled and the original titles restored to them.

• The 1979 deed was not his doing; the valid sale was evidenced by the 1991 deed of sale.
• Petitioners caused the registration of the 1979 deed and transfer of title, hence they are estopped from questioning its validity.
• The action has prescribed, having been filed beyond four years from discovery of the fraud (registration on March 26, 1991).
• The NBI reports established the genuineness of petitioners' signatures on the 1991 deed.
• Nelia's admission in her November 12, 1998 letter and his payment of real property taxes support his claim of ownership.

• Procedural: Whether the Supreme Court may re-examine factual findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the authenticity of the 1991 deed of sale.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the 1979 deed of sale is valid and transfers title to the respondent.
  • Whether the 1991 deed of sale is valid despite its improper notarization.
  • Whether the petitioners may be compelled to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of the respondent.

• Procedural: The Supreme Court declined to re-examine the factual findings of the Court of Appeals regarding the authenticity of the 1991 deed of sale, as the determination of authenticity is a question of fact rather than law, and none of the recognized exceptions to the rule were present.
• Substantive:
  • The 1979 deed of sale is spurious and null and void, conveying no title; the certificates of title issued pursuant thereto (TCT Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320) are declared null and void.
  • The 1991 deed of sale is valid despite improper notarization; the improper notarization merely stripped it of its public character and reduced it to a private instrument, but did not affect the validity of the sale itself.
  • The due execution and authenticity of the 1991 deed were established by the genuineness of petitioners' signatures as found by the NBI and the CA's independent examination, supported by Nelia's admission of the sale and respondent's payment of real property taxes.
  • Petitioners are directed to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of respondent within thirty days from finality of the decision pursuant to Articles 1357 and 1358(1) of the Civil Code.
  • In case of non-compliance, respondent may file a motion before the court a quo to issue an order divesting petitioners' title under Section 10(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.

• Forgery Cannot Be Presumed — Forgery must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence. In this case, the claimed forgery was ruled out by comparison of signatures.
• Effect of Improper Notarization — Improper notarization of a document strips it of its public character and reduces it to a private instrument, but does not necessarily invalidate the underlying contract or sale.
• Proof of Due Execution of Private Documents — Under Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court, before any private document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and authenticity must be proved either by anyone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.
• Proof of Genuineness of Handwriting — Under Section 22, Rule 132, the genuineness of handwriting may be proved by any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person write, or by a comparison made by the witness or the court with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered.
• Coercive Means to Compel Form — Articles 1357 and 1358(1) of the Civil Code provide a coercive means granted to contracting parties to enable them to reciprocally compel the observance of the prescribed form for the sale of real property; the requirement of a public instrument is merely a formal requisite for registrability, not for validity.
• Execution of Judgments for Specific Acts — Section 10(a), Rule 39 of the Rules of Court allows the court to divest the title of any party and vest it in others when a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance and the party fails to comply within the specified time.
• Payment of Taxes as Indicia of Ownership — Payment of real property taxes is a strong indicium of possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right mind would pay taxes for a property he does not claim to own.

• "Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery to establish his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it."
• "The improper notarization of the 1991 deed of sale stripped it of its public character and reduced it to a private instrument."
• "A judgment should be complete by itself; hence, the courts are to dispose finally of the litigation so as to preclude further litigation between the parties on the same subject matter, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits between the parties and their privies and successors-in-interests."

• Rufloe v. Burgos — Cited for the rule that a forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title.
• Spouses Bernales v. Heirs of Sambaan — Cited for the principle that authenticity of documents is a question of fact rather than law.
• Almagro v. Spouses Amaya, Sr. — Cited for the rule that it is not the function of the Supreme Court to re-examine, winnow, and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the parties absent recognized exceptions.
• Heirs of Sarili v. Lagrosa — Cited for the effect of improper notarization in stripping a document of its public character.
• Chong v. CA — Cited for the principle that the legal requirement of a public instrument for sale of real property is merely a coercive means to compel observance of form.
• Spouses Gonzaga v. CA — Cited for the doctrine that a judgment should be complete by itself to avoid multiplicity of suits.

• Article 1357, Civil Code — Allows contracting parties to compel each other to observe the required form once the contract has been perfected; this right may be exercised simultaneously with the action upon the contract.
• Article 1358(1), Civil Code — Requires that acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a public document.
• Section 20, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the proof of due execution and authenticity of private documents.
• Section 22, Rule 132, Rules of Court — Governs the proof of genuineness of handwriting.
• Section 10(a), Rule 39, Rules of Court — Allows the court to divest title and vest it in others when a party fails to comply with a judgment directing execution of a conveyance.
• Section 12, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Cited regarding the requirement of notarization for registrability of deeds and conveyances.