Tigno v. Aquino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents spouses Estafino and Florentina Aquino filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and damages against Isidro Bustria, seeking to enforce an alleged sale of a fishpond. A compromise agreement was entered into, recognizing the sale and granting Bustria a right to repurchase after seven years. The compromise agreement was approved by the Court of First Instance. Bustria died, and his daughter, Zenaida B. Tigno, attempted to repurchase the property by filing a Motion for Consignation, depositing P200,000.00. The Aquinos opposed, claiming the right to repurchase was not yet demandable and Tigno failed to make a tender of payment. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) denied the motion. Tigno later filed an action for Revival of Judgment, seeking to revive the decision in the original civil case. The Aquinos opposed, alleging that Bustria had sold his right to repurchase to them via a deed of sale dated October 17, 1985. Procedural History: The Aquinos presented Jesus De Francia and former Judge Franklin Cariño as witnesses to the deed of sale. They offered the deed of sale as Exhibit "8." Tigno objected, claiming it was false, fraudulent, and not acknowledged by Bustria. The RTC refused to admit the deed of sale in evidence, expressing doubts about its authenticity and the conflicting testimonies of De Francia and Cariño. The RTC ruled in favor of Tigno, ordering the revival of the judgment. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, holding that the deed of sale was duly notarized and carried the presumption of regularity, and that the RTC erred in refusing its admission. The CA ruled that the deed of sale extinguished Bustria's heirs' right to repurchase. Tigno's motion for reconsideration was denied, leading to the present petition. The Petition: Tigno imputed grave abuse of discretion and misappreciation of facts to the CA for admitting the deed of sale, arguing it was false, fraudulent, and unsupported by consideration. The Supreme Court noted that while factual issues are generally not reviewed, a review is warranted when trial and appellate court findings conflict, and specifically addressed the capacity of the notary public to notarize the document.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Sale, notarized by a sitting Municipal Trial Court (MTC) judge, is valid and admissible in evidence; and whether the RTC erred in refusing to admit the Deed of Sale in evidence. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision and admitting the Deed of Sale.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The assailed Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED, and the Decision of the Regional Trial Court is REINSTATED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity and admissibility of the Deed of Sale; and the RTC's refusal to admit the Deed of Sale: The Supreme Court held that the Deed of Sale was not duly notarized because it was certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment, and the notary public, Judge Franklin Cariño, lacked the authority to notarize a private document unrelated to his official duties. Consequently, the Deed of Sale must be deemed as not having been notarized at all, and is classified as a private document. The Supreme Court affirmed the RTC's refusal to admit the Deed of Sale, as the RTC had ample discretion to refuse admission if not convinced of the proffered proof. The RTC's doubts were well-founded, particularly the fact that the Deed of Sale was raised for the first time in the answer to the petition for revival of judgment, despite prior attempts by Tigno to enforce the repurchase right where the Aquinos did not invoke the deed. The Court agreed with the RTC that the Deed of Sale was dubious in origin and execution and that its due execution and authenticity had not been proven. On the Court of Appeals' reversal of the RTC decision: The Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision. It failed to appreciate the Deed of Sale as a private document and incorrectly applied the presumption of regularity. The appellate court also disregarded the RTC's observation of inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses for the Aquinos, De Francia and Judge Cariño, regarding who prepared the deed. The Court found the RTC's conclusion that the Deed of Sale was spurious to be correct, based on the totality of the evidence and circumstances, including the advanced age of Bustria, the implausibility of his travel, and the differences in his signatures.
Main Doctrine
A document notarized by a person without the authority to do so is considered unnotarized, and its admissibility as a public document is negated, requiring proof of its authenticity and due execution as a private document.