Sumbad vs. Court of Appeals

The Court established that a claim of forgery regarding a public document requires clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of validity, and legal prohibitions (such as donations between common-law spouses) cannot be raised for the first time on appeal, particularly when the claimants are barred by laches for failing to assert their rights for an unreasonable length of time.

George K. Tait, Sr., after the death of his first wife, entered into a common-law relationship with Maria F. Tait. In 1974, George executed a Deed of Donation transferring a property in Sum-at, Bontoc, to Maria. After George died in 1977, Maria sold portions of this property to several buyers who subsequently built homes and lived there. Years later, George's daughters from his first marriage sought to recover the properties, claiming the donation to Maria was invalid.

• George K. Tait, Sr.'s first wife, Agata B. Tait, died in 1936; he subsequently lived in a common-law relationship with Maria F. Tait.
• On April 2, 1974, George executed a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos donating a parcel of unregistered agricultural land in Sitio Sum-at, Bontoc, to Maria F. Tait.
• George died on December 24, 1977.
• Between 1982 and 1983, Maria F. Tait sold lots included in the Sum-at property to the private respondents, who relied on a Tax Declaration showing Maria as the owner.
• Private respondents took possession of the lots, built houses, and planted crops.
• On July 24, 1989, petitioners (George's daughters) filed a complaint alleging the property belonged to the conjugal partnership of George and Agata and that the donation to Maria was a forgery.
• During trial, petitioners presented a witness, Shirley Eillenger, who claimed she saw a person named Raquel Tait forge George's signature on the Deed of Donation in a dormitory, but the trial court found this testimony incredible and rehearsed.
• Petitioners admitted they waited until 1988 to communicate with respondents regarding the property, despite their father dying in 1977.

• The Deed of Donation dated April 2, 1974, is void because it is a forgery.
• The Deed of Donation is void under Article 133 of the Civil Code (now Article 87 of the Family Code), which prohibits donations between spouses during marriage.
• The Deed was notarized by a deputy clerk of court who allegedly lacked the authority to act as a notary public, violating Article 749 of the Civil Code regarding donations of immovable property.
• Maria F. Tait had no authority to sell the land, rendering the sales to private respondents null and void.
• Petitioners are not barred by laches because they only discovered the sales transactions in 1988.

• The private respondents were purchasers in good faith and for value, relying on the Tax Declaration in the name of Maria F. Tait.
• The property did not belong to the conjugal partnership of George and Agata Tait because Agata died more than 30 years before the tax declaration was issued.
• The petitioners' action is barred by laches due to their failure to assert rights for a long period while respondents occupied and improved the land.
• The petitioners failed to prove the allegation of forgery.

• Procedural Issues:
  • Whether the petitioners can raise the issue of the donation's nullity based on Article 133 of the Civil Code for the first time on appeal.
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the Deed of Donation was a forgery.
  • Whether the Deed of Donation was validly notarized by a deputy clerk of court.
  • Whether the petitioners' action is barred by laches.

• Procedural:
  • The Court ruled that the petitioners could not invoke Article 133 of the Civil Code (prohibiting donations between spouses) to invalidate the deed because they did not raise this issue in the trial court. Raising a new issue on appeal contravenes basic rules of fair play and justice.
• Substantive:
  • The Court affirmed the lower courts' finding that forgery was not proven. The testimony of the petitioners' witness was deemed "vague and incredible," and petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence, such as handwriting experts, to overcome the presumption of validity of the public document.
  • The Court held that the notarization was valid. Under the presumption of regularity of official duty and Section 21 of the Revised Administrative Code, the deputy clerk of court was presumed authorized to administer oaths in the absence of the clerk of court.
  • The Court ruled that the action was barred by laches. Petitioners waited 12 years after their father's death and several years after respondents had openly occupied and improved the land before filing suit. This constituted neglect to assert their rights within a reasonable time.

• Laches — The failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. The Court applied this doctrine to dismiss the petitioners' claim because they delayed asserting their inheritance rights for 12 years while respondents occupied the land in good faith.
• Prohibition of Donations Between Spouses (Art. 133 Civil Code / Art. 87 Family Code) — A rule stating that every donation between spouses during the marriage shall be void to prevent undue influence. While the Court acknowledged this applies to common-law relationships (Matabuena v. Cervantes), it refused to apply it in this case solely because the issue was not raised during the trial.
• Presumption of Regularity of Official Duty — The legal presumption that a public official has performed their duties correctly and legally. This was applied to validate the act of the deputy clerk of court who notarized the Deed of Donation.
• Burden of Proof in Forgery — Forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The Court used this to reject the claim of forgery which relied only on weak testimonial evidence.
• Change of Theory on Appeal — Litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as it violates fair play. This prevented the petitioners from introducing the argument regarding the statutory prohibition on donations between spouses at the appellate stage.

• "Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same."
• "Time and again, this Court has ruled that litigants cannot raise an issue for the first time on appeal as this would contravene the basic rules of fair play and justice."
• "Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exerting due diligence, could or should have been done earlier."

• Matabuena v. Cervantes — Cited to affirm that the prohibition on donations between spouses under Article 133 of the Civil Code extends to persons in common-law relations.
• Heirs of Felicidad Canque v. Court of Appeals — Cited to support the principle that factual findings of the trial court will not be disturbed on appeal unless specific facts were overlooked.
• Kierulf v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the rule that when findings of the trial and appellate courts do not conflict, a review of the facts is unnecessary.
• Veloso v. Court of Appeals — Cited regarding the burden of proof required to establish forgery.
• Reyes v. Court of Appeals — Cited for the definition of laches.

• Article 133, Civil Code (now Article 87, Family Code) — Prohibits donations between spouses during marriage; cited by petitioners to argue the donation was void, though rejected on procedural grounds.
• Article 749, Civil Code — Requires donations of immovable property to be made in a public instrument; cited by petitioners to challenge the validity of the notarization.
• Section 21, Revised Administrative Code of 1917 (as amended) — Lists officials authorized to administer oaths; cited to confirm the authority of the deputy clerk of court to notarize the deed.