Domingo vs. Court of Appeals

A deed of sale is void for lack of consent and consideration where the vendor was senile, the original document is missing, the carbon copy contains irregularities, and the price is grossly inadequate.

Paulina Rigonan owned three parcels of land, a house, and a warehouse. In 1966, petitioners, claiming to be her closest surviving relatives, took possession of the properties. Private respondents, also claiming kinship, asserted ownership based on a deed of absolute sale purportedly executed by Paulina on January 28, 1965.

• The Alleged Sale: Paulina Rigonan allegedly sold nine parcels of land, including the three disputed lots with a house and warehouse, to private respondents for P850 via a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 28, 1965.
• Possession and Dispute: Upon Paulina's death in 1966, petitioners took possession as her nearest surviving kin. Private respondents claimed ownership and demanded petitioners vacate, leading to the complaint for reinvindicacion.
• Irregularities in the Deed: Only a carbon copy (duplicate original) of the deed was presented; the original was missing. The carbon copy contained intercalations, erasures, and discrepancies in entry dates and numbers. It was registered after Paulina's death without an affidavit of explanation for the missing original. Paulina was never given a copy.
• Witness Testimonies: Instrumental witness Juan Franco retracted his testimony upon seeing the deed, stating it was not the document he signed. Another witness, Efren Sibucao, was not presented, and his affidavit was withdrawn. Notary Public Atty. Tagatag acted as both notary and witness, but his testimony remained uncorroborated and self-serving. He could not explain why the same lots were included in Paulina's subsequent will, which he also notarized.
• Vendor's Condition and Consideration: Zosima Domingo testified that Paulina was senile, playing with her waste and urinating in bed at the time of the alleged execution. Paulina was financially stable and had no need to sell. The P850 consideration for the properties was grossly inadequate, and no receipt of payment was presented. Felipe Rigonan admitted Paulina was never asked to vacate the property after the alleged sale.

• Factual Findings of Trial Court: Petitioners argued that the CA erred in disregarding the trial court's factual findings, which are entitled to great weight and respect, especially when based on unrebutted evidence.
• Due Execution of the Deed: Petitioners maintained that the due execution was not sufficiently established. The sole corroborating witness retracted, leaving only the notary's self-serving testimony. The original deed was missing, and the carbon copy contained insertions and erasures without the required affidavit of explanation under the Administrative Code.
• Grossly Inadequate Consideration: Petitioners averred that the P850 price for nine parcels, a house, and a warehouse indicates a fictitious sale, as no financially stable person would sell property at such a price.
• Lack of Consent: Petitioners asserted that Paulina was already senile at the time of the alleged execution and could not have consented to the sale by merely affixing her thumbmark.

• Procedural Defect: Respondents countered that the petition must be dismissed for lack of a certification against forum shopping.
• Factual Nature of Issues: Respondents argued that the petition raises only factual issues, which are not proper subjects for review by the Supreme Court, as the CA had already firmly resolved them based on records.
• Credibility of Trial Court Finding: Respondents claimed the trial judge presided over only one hearing and thus could not validly declare the deed "fake," especially since no signature was forged but a thumbmark appeared.

• Due Execution of the Deed: Whether private respondents sufficiently established the existence and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Procedural Issues: Whether the petition should be dismissed on the grounds of lack of certification against forum shopping and the raising of only factual issues.

• Due Execution of the Deed: The existence and due execution were not established. Only a carbon copy with unexplained alterations was presented, while the original remained missing. The testimony of the notary public was uncorroborated and self-serving, especially after one witness retracted and another was not presented. The vendor's continued possession and the inclusion of the same lots in a subsequent will cast serious doubt on the deed's genuineness. Furthermore, the vendor's senility negated consent, and the grossly inadequate consideration of P850, unsupported by a receipt of payment, rendered the sale void ab initio.
• Procedural Issues: Substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement was deemed sufficient, as a copy was attached to the petition filed with the Supreme Court. The general rule that the Supreme Court does not review factual findings admits exceptions, such as when the CA and RTC findings are contradictory or when the CA overlooked relevant facts, both of which were present here. A judge who did not preside over all hearings may validly render a decision based on the records and transcripts.

• Continuity of Courts — The death, resignation, or cessation of a presiding judge does not affect the continuity of a court or the efficacy of its proceedings. A judge may validly render a decision based on records and transcripts even if they only partly heard the testimony of witnesses.
• Substantial Compliance with Procedural Rules — A deviation from the rigid enforcement of procedural rules, such as the certification against forum shopping, may be allowed to attain the prime objective of dispensing justice.
• Exceptions to the Rule on Factual Findings — The Supreme Court may review factual issues when the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are contradictory, when the findings are grounded on speculations or conjectures, or when the appellate court overlooked relevant facts that would justify a different conclusion.
• Incapacity to Contract Due to Age — Advanced age or physical infirmities alone do not render a person incompetent to contract; however, when such age or infirmities impair mental faculties to the extent that the person cannot properly and intelligently protect property rights, incapacity exists.
• Grossly Inadequate Consideration — A grossly inadequate price raises serious doubt regarding the validity of a contract, particularly when coupled with the vendor's lack of need for money and the absence of proof of payment.

• "Consideration is the why of a contract, the essential reason which moves the contracting parties to enter into the contract."
• "The general rule is that a person is not incompetent to contract merely because of advanced years or by reason of physical infirmities. However, when such age or infirmities have impaired the mental faculties so as to prevent the person from properly, intelligently, and firmly protecting her property rights then she is undeniably incapacitated."

• Alcos v. IAC, 162 SCRA 823 (1988) — Followed. The buyer's immediate possession corroborates the deed's authenticity; conversely, the vendor's continued possession casts serious doubt on the due execution of the deed.
• Rongavilla v. CA, 294 SCRA 289 (1998) — Followed. Lack of consideration invalidates a sale where the vendors were of advanced age, not in dire need of money, and the amount was disproportionately small.
• Ayco v. Fernandez, 195 SCRA 328 (1991) — Followed. A judge may validly render a decision although they have only partly heard the testimony of the witnesses.
• Medel v. People, G.R. No. 137143 (2000) — Followed. Factual issues may be reviewed by the Supreme Court when the findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are contradictory.

• Administrative Code (as amended) — Requires that if the original deed of sale is not presented upon registration, the carbon copy must be accompanied by an affidavit of explanation; otherwise, registration must be denied. The failure to comply with this requirement added to the irregularities vitiating the deed's due execution.

Bellosillo, Mendoza, Buena, and De Leon Jr.