Requina, Sr. vs. Erasmo

A deed of sale that is irregularly notarized and whose vendor's signature is proven to be forged is void and conveys no title. In cases of overlapping claims over unregistered land, the buyer who first takes possession in good faith and first records the sale has the superior right.

The dispute involves a 102-square-meter portion of a larger lot (Lot No. 1442-Q) in Cebu City, originally owned by Florentino Bagano. The petitioners (Rufino B. Requina, Sr. and Allan Ereño) claimed ownership through a chain of title: a 1993 sale of a house constructed on the lot, followed by a 1994 Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale executed by Florentino's sole heir, Rosalita Bagano Nevado. The respondent (Eleuteria B. Erasmo) claimed ownership based on two Deeds of Sale purportedly executed by Florentino and his wife in 1989. The core conflict arose when the respondent presented her deeds to assert ownership after a fire destroyed the petitioners' house in 2001, leading the petitioners to file an action for nullity of the respondent's Deed of Sale.

• Nature of the Case: This is an action for declaration of nullity of a Deed of Sale and for determination of the better right of possession and ownership over a 102-square-meter portion of unregistered land.
• The Disputed Property: The property is part of Lot No. 1442-Q in Cebu City, originally owned by Gregorio Bagano. Upon his death, his heir Florentino Bagano received a 390-square-meter share. The disputed 102-square-meter portion was where a house, originally rented by Atty. Parawan and later sold to Dr. Enrique Hipolito, Sr., was constructed.
• The Petitioners' Claim: In 1993, Dr. Hipolito sold the house to petitioners Rufino Requina, Sr. and Aurea Ereño. In 1994, after Florentino's death, his sole heir Rosalita Bagano Nevado executed an Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale, transferring the 102-square-meter lot to the petitioners. This affidavit was published and registered. Petitioners took possession and paid real property taxes from 1994.
• The Respondent's Claim: Respondent Eleuteria Erasmo claimed she purchased the property in two installments from Florentino and his wife Aurelia: a 50-square-meter portion via a Deed of Sale dated May 8, 1989, and an additional 195-square-meter portion via a Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989. She asserted she had been paying realty taxes since 1980.
• The Forgery Evidence: Petitioners presented a PNP Crime Laboratory document examiner who testified that Florentino's signature on the November 17, 1989 Deed of Sale was forged, citing significant differences from his authenticated signature on the May 8, 1989 deed. The trial court conducted its own visual comparison and concurred.
• Irregular Notarization: The November 17, 1989 Deed was notarized on January 31, 1990. The notarial details were highly suspect: the notary public, Atty. Jesus V. Rosal, purportedly used 33 notarial books in just over seven months. Furthermore, the Records Management and Archives Office certified it had no copy of the deed, and the respondent's residence certificate listed on the deed was issued after the deed's purported execution date.
• Respondent's Inaction: Despite allegedly owning the property since 1989, respondent did not assert ownership, collect rent from the occupants, or declare the property for tax purposes in her name until 2007, long after the lawsuit commenced.

• Forgery: Petitioners argued that the signature of Florentino Bagano on the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989 was a forgery, as established by the expert testimony of a PNP document examiner and the trial court's own comparison.
• Irregular Notarization: Petitioners maintained that the notarization of the November 17, 1989 Deed was defective, stripping it of its public document status and the presumption of regularity. The notarial book progression and lack of archival copy were cited as evidence.
• Better Right of Ownership: Petitioners contended that even if both sales were valid, they had the better right under Article 1544 of the Civil Code and Act No. 3344, as they were first in good faith possession and first to register their title.

• Valid Sale and Good Faith: Respondent countered that she purchased the property for value and in good faith from the original owners. She presented two notarized deeds of sale and tax receipts as proof of ownership.
• Affidavit was Fictitious: Respondent argued that Rosalita Bagano Nevado's Affidavit of Adjudication was fictitious because Rosalita herself was a witness to the 1989 sale to respondent, meaning she had no property left to adjudicate.
• Inapplicability of Double Sale: Respondent argued that Article 1544 on double sale was inapplicable because the properties were sold by different vendors (Spouses Bagano vs. Rosalita).

• Validity of the Deed: Whether the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989 is void due to forgery and irregular notarization.
• Application of Double Sale Rules: Whether Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale applies to determine the better right over the property.
• Better Right of Ownership: Who between the petitioners and the respondent has a better right to the disputed 102-square-meter portion of the property.

• Validity of the Deed: The November 17, 1989 Deed of Sale is null and void. The notarization was irregular, reducing the document to a private instrument that requires proof of due execution. The presumption of regularity was overcome by evidence of dubious notarial details and the absence of an archival copy. Furthermore, clear and convincing evidence, including expert testimony and the Court's own visual comparison, established that Florentino Bagano's signature was forged. A forged deed is inexistent and conveys no rights.
• Application of Double Sale Rules: Article 1544 of the Civil Code is applicable. Even assuming the validity of both parties' claims, the situation constitutes a double sale of immovable property. The Court found it unnecessary to rule on the validity of the respondent's first deed (dated May 8, 1989) as it pertained to a different 50-square-meter portion not in dispute.
• Better Right of Ownership: The petitioners have the better right. Under Article 1544, ownership of immovable property belongs to the person who, in good faith, first records it in the Registry of Property. In default of registration, it belongs to the person first in possession in good faith. Here, the petitioners registered their Affidavit of Adjudication under Act No. 3344 and were in open, continuous possession. The respondent was a buyer in bad faith, as she failed to investigate the rights of the actual possessors (the petitioners) and delayed asserting her alleged ownership for years.

• Irregular Notarization — A notarized document carries a presumption of regularity. However, if the notarization is defective (e.g., signatories did not personally appear, notarial records are inconsistent), this presumption is lost. The document is reduced to a private instrument, and its due execution must be proven by preponderance of evidence.
• Forgery — Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. It can be established through expert testimony and by the court's own comparison of the questioned signature with authentic specimens. A forged deed is null and void and conveys no title.
• Double Sale of Immovable Property (Article 1544) — In cases of double sale of immovable property, ownership belongs to: (1) the buyer who, in good faith, first records it in the Registry of Property; (2) in default thereof, to the buyer who, in good faith, was first in possession; and (3) in default thereof, to the buyer who presents the oldest title, provided there is good faith. Good faith requires the buyer to investigate the rights of those in actual possession of the property.

• "A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument."
• "The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular."
• "Forgery, as a rule, cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery."
• "The failure... to take the ordinary precautions which a prudent man would have taken under the circumstances, [e]specially in buying a piece of land in the actual, visible and public possession of another person, other than the vendor, constitutes gross negligence amounting to bad faith."

• De Joya v. Madlangbayan, G.R. No. 228999, April 28, 2021 — Cited for the doctrine that irregular notarization reduces a document to a private instrument requiring proof of due execution.
• Rama v. Papa, 597 Phil. 227 (2009) — Cited for the rule that notarization requires the signatory's personal appearance before the notary public, and failure to comply eliminates the presumption of regularity.
• The Heirs of Peter Donton v. Stier and Maggay, 817 Phil 165 (2017) — Cited for the standard of proof for forgery (clear, positive, and convincing evidence) and the method of proving it through signature comparison.
• Rosaroso v. Soria, 711 Phil. 644 (2013) — Cited and applied to illustrate the rules on double sale and the requirement for a buyer to investigate the rights of persons in actual possession to be considered a buyer in good faith.

• Article 1544, Civil Code of the Philippines — Governs the rules on double sale, providing the hierarchy of rights among multiple buyers of the same immovable property based on good faith registration, possession, or age of title.
• Act No. 3344 — Provides for the recording of instruments relating to unregistered land. Registration under this Act is the operative fact for determining priority in cases of double sale involving unregistered property.
• Section 19(b), Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Defines documents acknowledged before a notary public as public documents.
• Section 22, Rule 132, Revised Rules of Court — Provides how the genuineness of handwriting may be proved, including by comparison made by the court.

• Justice Mario V. Lopez
• Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (No part)
• Justice Antonio T. Kho, Jr.