Alcantara-Daus v. De Leon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents alleged that they are owners of a parcel of land inherited by Hermoso de Leon. They engaged the services of Atty. Florencio Juan to handle their property documents. After Atty. Juan's death, documents surfaced indicating their properties were conveyed by sale or quitclaim to various individuals, including Atty. Juan and his sisters, when no such conveyances were intended. Hermoso de Leon's signature on a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition with Quitclaim in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was allegedly forged. They discovered the land in question was sold by Rodolfo de Leon to petitioner Aurora Alcantara-Daus. They demanded annulment and reconveyance, but defendants refused. Petitioner Aurora Alcantara-Daus averred she bought the land in good faith and for value on December 6, 1975, and has been in continuous, public, peaceful, and open possession, appropriating its produce without objection. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioner, holding that respondents' claim was barred by laches as more than 18 years had passed since the sale, and that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition was presumptively authentic as a notarial document. The Petition: The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, holding that laches did not bar respondents' claim, that Rodolfo de Leon was not the owner at the time of sale and thus could not transfer ownership, and that Hermoso de Leon's signature on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim was a forgery, precluding petitioner from being a buyer in good faith. The CA's Resolution denied petitioner's Motion for Reconsideration. The case reached the Supreme Court via a Petition for Review.
Issue(s)
Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 6, 1975 executed by Rodolfo de Leon over the land in question in favor of petitioner was perfected and binding upon the parties therein? Whether or not the evidentiary weight of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim, executed by Respondent Hermoso de Leon, Perlita de Leon and Carlota de Leon in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was overcome by more than a preponderance of evidence of respondents? Whether or not the possession of petitioner including her predecessor-in-interest Rodolfo de Leon over the land in question was in good faith? Whether or not the instant case initiated and filed by respondents on February 24, 1993 before the trial court has prescribed and respondents are guilty of laches?
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale: The Court reiterated that a contract of sale is perfected by mere consent, upon a meeting of the minds on the subject matter, price, and terms of payment. However, the seller's obligation is to transfer ownership and deliver the thing sold, and the real right of ownership is acquired by the buyer only through tradition or delivery. At the time of sale, Rodolfo de Leon was not the owner of the land he delivered to petitioner. Therefore, the consummation of the contract and the transfer of ownership depended on whether Rodolfo de Leon subsequently acquired ownership, which in turn hinged on the authenticity of the Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim in his favor. On the Authenticity of the Extrajudicial Partition: The Court agreed with the CA that the signature of Hermoso de Leon on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim was a forgery. While notarial documents enjoy a presumption of regularity, this presumption can be overcome by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence. The Court found that a comparison of genuine signatures with the purported signature on the deed revealed variances that indicated forgery. The lone testimony of the notary, without corroborative testimony from attesting witnesses, was insufficient to overcome the evidence of forgery, especially given the CA's finding that the variance could not be attributed to age or mechanical acts of signing. On Possession in Good Faith: The Court held that petitioner's claim of possession in good faith, leading to ownership by prescription, was unmeritorious. It is well-settled that no title to registered land in derogation of the registered owner can be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Furthermore, prescription cannot be allowed against hereditary successors who merely continue the personality of the decedent. Since the disputed land was covered by a certificate of registration, it could not be acquired by prescription, irrespective of petitioner's alleged good faith. On Prescription of Action and Laches: The Court found that respondents' action had not prescribed. Real actions over immovable properties prescribe after thirty years under Article 1141 of the New Civil Code, and this period is interrupted by the filing of a complaint in court. The Complaint was filed on February 24, 1993, well within the 30-year prescriptive period. Regarding laches, the Court reiterated that it is an equitable doctrine that cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetuate fraud. Since the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition, upon which petitioner based her claim, was found to be a forgery, the assertion of laches to thwart respondents' claim was foreclosed.
Main Doctrine
While a contract of sale is perfected by mere consent, ownership of the thing sold is acquired only upon its delivery to the buyer. The real right of ownership is transferred only by tradition or delivery. A forged document cannot be the basis for claiming ownership or good faith.