Almendra vs. Intermediate Appellate Court

A duly notarized deed of sale enjoys a presumption of regularity and is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution, which can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. The sale of a specific portion of an undivided conjugal property is valid only as to the seller's ideal share therein, and the sale of property adjudicated subject to the rights of another is binding on the buyer under the principle of caveat emptor.

Aleja Ceno was twice married. With her first husband, Juanso Yu Book, she had three children, including Bernardina and Melecia. During that marriage, she acquired a parcel of land (covered by Tax Declaration No. 11500). After Juanso's death, a partition case (Civil Case No. 4387) between Aleja and Bernardina resulted in a 1970 supplemental decision subdividing the property and adjudicating specific lots to each, with Lot No. 6352 given to Aleja "subject to whatever may be the rights thereto of her son Magdaleno Ceno." With her second husband, Santiago Almendra, Aleja had four children, including Angeles, Roman, Margarito, and Delia. They acquired conjugal property covered by Original Certificate of Title No. P-10094. Aleja also inherited a separate parcel from her father (covered by Tax Declaration No. 27190). Santiago predeceased Aleja. In 1973, Aleja executed three deeds of sale: (1) to Angeles, selling one-half of the conjugal property (OCT No. P-10094) and one-half of her inherited property (TD No. 27190); (2) to Roman, selling the property covered by TD No. 11500; and (3) to Angeles and Roman, selling Lot No. 6352 from the prior partition case. Aleja died in 1975.

• Parties and Prior Litigation: Aleja Ceno, the mother, had children from two marriages. A prior partition case (Civil Case No. 4387) adjudicated a property (TD No. 11500) into specific lots, with Lot No. 6352 awarded to Aleja subject to the rights of her son Magdaleno Ceno.
• The Sales: In 1973, Aleja executed three notarized deeds of sale: (1) sold to daughter Angeles a half-portion of conjugal land (OCT No. P-10094) and half of her inherited land (TD No. 27190) for P2,000; (2) sold to son Roman the land under TD No. 11500 for P2,000; (3) sold to Angeles and Roman Lot No. 6352 (from the prior partition) for P2,000.
• Lower Court Findings: The RTC found the sales simulated, null, and void, citing fraud, undue influence, and lack of valid consent as Aleja resided with Angeles.
• Appellate Court Findings: The IAC reversed, crediting the notary public's testimony that he witnessed Aleja signing and receiving payment, and finding petitioners failed to prove fraud or gross inadequacy of price.
• Supreme Court's Factual Assessment: The Court upheld the IAC's credibility findings, noting the notarized deeds' presumption of regularity and the lack of clear, convincing evidence of fraud or defect in consent. It also noted filial love as a factor in the uniform pricing and that private respondents had the financial means to pay.

• Simulation and Fraud: Petitioners argued the deeds of sale were simulated, obtained through fraud, undue influence, and misrepresentation, and that Aleja's consent was defective because she resided with Angeles.
• Invalidity of Sale of Undivided Property: Petitioners contended the appellate court erred in sanctioning the sale of particular portions of yet undivided real properties.

• Due Execution and Consideration: Respondents countered that the deeds were duly notarized, the notary public testified to seeing Aleja sign and receive payment, and they had the financial capacity to pay the stipulated prices.
• Presumption of Regularity: Respondents maintained that the notarized deeds enjoyed a presumption of regularity, which petitioners failed to overcome with strong, conclusive evidence.

• Validity of the Deeds: Whether the deeds of sale were simulated, fraudulent, or vitiated for lack of consent.
• Sale of Conjugal Property: Whether Aleja could validly sell a specific, designated portion of an undivided conjugal property.
• Sale of Property Subject to Another's Rights: Whether the sale of Lot No. 6352, adjudicated to Aleja subject to Magdaleno's rights, was valid and binding.

• Validity of the Deeds: The deeds were valid. The notarized documents carried a presumption of regularity. The notary public's testimony confirming Aleja's signature and receipt of payment was credible and admissible without further proof. Petitioners' allegations of fraud and undue influence were self-serving and unsubstantiated. The uniform price was not shown to be grossly inadequate, and filial relations were a relevant consideration.
• Sale of Conjugal Property: The sale was valid only as to Aleja's one-half interest in the conjugal property. Aleja could not sell a specific, designated hilly portion absent proof that the conjugal partnership had been liquidated and partitioned after Santiago's death. Prior to partition, she held only an ideal or abstract share in the entire property.
• Sale of Property Subject to Another's Rights: The sale was valid but subject to the condition protecting Magdaleno Ceno's rights as stated in the prior court decision. The deed of sale explicitly incorporated this condition. The principle of caveat emptor applies; the buyer (private respondents) purchased with notice of the encumbrance.

• Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Documents — A notarized document is entitled to the presumption that it was duly executed and that its contents are true. This presumption can only be overcome by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. The Court applied this to affirm the deeds' validity, as petitioners' evidence fell short.
• Sale of an Ideal Share in Co-ownership — A co-owner or a spouse (prior to liquidation of the conjugal partnership) may only sell, mortgage, or otherwise dispose of his or her ideal or proportionate share in the co-owned or conjugal property. The buyer acquires no right to any specific, determinate portion until the property is partitioned. The Court applied this to invalidate the sale of a specific hilly portion of the conjugal property, limiting its effect to Aleja's abstract one-half share.
• Caveat Emptor (Buyer Beware) — A buyer must be vigilant and examine the property and its title for any defects, liens, or encumbrances. If a buyer purchases with knowledge of a condition or encumbrance, they are bound by it. The Court applied this to uphold the sale of Lot No. 6352, as the deed itself made the sale subject to Magdaleno Ceno's rights.

• "Such testimony is admissible as evidence without further proof of the due execution of the deeds in question and is conclusive as to the truthfulness of their contents in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary." — This passage underscores the high evidentiary burden required to overturn a notarized deed's presumption of regularity.
• "Before such partition, Aleja could not claim title to any definite portion of the property for all she had was an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire property." — This articulates the core principle governing the sale of property in an undivided estate or conjugal partnership.

• Antonio v. Estrella, G.R. No. 73319, December 1, 1987, 156 SCRA 68 — Cited for the principle that a notarized document carries a presumption of regularity.
• Tan v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 68834, June 6, 1990, 186 SCRA 322 — Cited for the rule that a notarized deed is admissible in evidence without further proof of its due execution.
• Jocson v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 55322, February 16, 1989, 170 SCRA 333 — Cited for the consideration that filial love may explain a sale's price between parent and child.
• Oliveras v. Lopez, L-29727, December 14, 1988, 168 SCRA 431 — Cited as controlling precedent for the rule that a co-owner cannot sell a specific portion of an undivided property, only their ideal share.

• Articles 135 & 148(2), Civil Code of the Philippines — Cited to distinguish between paraphernal property (wife's exclusive property) and conjugal partnership property. The sale of Aleja's inherited land (TD No. 27190) was valid as it was paraphernal.

• Justice Gutierrez, Jr.
• Justice Bidin
• Justice Davide, Jr.
• Justice Romero

N/A — The decision was unanimous.