Bunag v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns the ownership of a parcel of unregistered land. The petitioner, Francisco Bunag, claims the land was originally owned by his father, Apolonio Bunag Aguas, who allegedly allowed the respondent's brother, Jose Bautista Santiago, to build a house on the land with the condition that Jose would pay the land taxes. The respondents, Estrudes Bautista Vda. de Bituin and Bruno Bautista, assert ownership through a deed of sale purportedly executed by Apolonio Bunag on January 3, 1941, for P100.00. The authenticity and due execution of this deed of sale are central to the controversy. Procedural History: The petitioner, Francisco Bunag, filed a complaint seeking to recover possession of the disputed property. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioner, ordering the respondents to vacate the property and pay land taxes and rentals. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding the deed of sale to be validly executed and concluding that ownership lay with the respondent Bruno Bautista. The Court of Appeals subsequently denied the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. The Petition: The petitioner seeks review of the Court of Appeals' decision, arguing that the appellate court erred in holding that the deed of sale (Exhibit 1) was duly executed and authenticated, and in making conclusions not in accordance with the evidence on record. The petition highlights that the deed of sale is a private writing, not notarized, and lacks attesting witnesses. The petitioner contends that the Court of Appeals disregarded a crucial stipulation of facts regarding the payment of land taxes, which indicated that Apolonio Bunag Aguas remained the declared owner, thereby contradicting the claim of sale. The petition asserts that the Court of Appeals committed a misapprehension of facts, warranting Supreme Court review.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the Deed of Sale (Exhibit "1") was duly executed and authenticated. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in making a conclusion not in accordance with the evidence on record.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The decision of the Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE and the decision of the trial court is AFFIRMED in toto. This Decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the due execution and authenticity of the Deed of Sale (Exhibit "1"): The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in finding the deed of sale to be duly executed and authenticated. The Court emphasized that the deed of sale was a private writing, not notarized, and lacked attesting witnesses. Under Section 21, Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court, the due execution and authenticity of a private writing must be proven by evidence of anyone who saw it executed, by evidence of the genuineness of the handwriting, or by a subscribing witness. The Court found the testimony of Brigida Bautista, a sister of the respondents, insufficient to prove the deed's authenticity. Her testimony lacked details surrounding the execution and did not establish whether Apolonio Bunag understood the document, which was written in English and only bore his thumbmark, suggesting illiteracy. The trial court's cautious approach and its reasoning that the document should have been read, explained, or translated to Apolonio Bunag, and the absence of instrumental witnesses, were sustained by the Supreme Court. Consequently, the deed of sale was excluded for failure to prove its due execution and authenticity. On the issue of the Court of Appeals' conclusion not being in accordance with the evidence on record: The Supreme Court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the Court of Appeals' conclusion was not supported by the record. The Court of Appeals stated that the defendant's payment of taxes in his own name belied the plaintiff's claim that the defendant bound himself to pay taxes for the use of the land. However, the parties had expressly stipulated that while Bruno Bautista paid the land taxes from 1940 to 1964, the column "NAME OF DECLARED OWNER" in the tax receipts consistently showed "Bunag Aguas Apolonio." This stipulated fact, which was not alleged to be a palpable mistake, was conclusive upon the parties and could not be disregarded by the Court of Appeals. The Court also noted that the tax receipts themselves, presented by the respondents, corroborated this stipulated fact. Therefore, the Court of Appeals' conclusion was contrary to both the stipulated facts and the evidence presented by the respondents, supporting the petitioner's claim that his father merely allowed the use of the land on the condition of tax payment, rather than selling it.
Main Doctrine
A thumb-marked, non-notarized, and non-witnessed deed of sale, being a private writing, requires proof of its due execution and authenticity before it can be admitted in evidence. The testimony of a close relative of the respondent, without further corroboration or details surrounding the execution, is insufficient to establish the authenticity of such a document, especially when the purported signatory was illiterate and the document was in English.