Domingo v. Robles
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Norma B. Domingo and her husband were registered owners of a lot covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 53412. Petitioner entrusted the owner's duplicate copy of the title to her agent, Flor Bacani, for the purpose of selling the property. Later, the title was reported lost, and Bacani assisted in its reconstitution. Petitioner later discovered respondents building a house on the lot. Verification revealed that TCT No. 53412 had been cancelled and a new TCT No. 201730 was issued in the name of respondent Yolanda Robles, based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991, purportedly signed by petitioner and her husband. Petitioner claimed the deed was a forgery as she had not met the respondents and her husband was abroad. Procedural History: Petitioner filed a case for the nullity of the deed of sale and reconveyance. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, finding that respondents were purchasers in good faith and for value. The CA noted the similarity between petitioner's signature on the deed and on the verification of the complaint, and the absence of contrary proof. The CA also found that the sale was facilitated by petitioner's agent who had the owner's duplicate title and that the reconstituted title was free from liens or encumbrances. The Petition: Petitioner filed a Petition for Review with the Supreme Court, raising the sole issue of who is a purchaser in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991, is a forgery. Whether the respondents are purchasers in good faith and for value.
Ruling
The Petition is DENIED and the assailed Decision of the Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of forgery: The Court held that forgery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence and cannot be presumed. The CA's observation that petitioner's signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale bore a striking similarity to her signature on the verification of the complaint, without any contrary proof, was a significant factor. Petitioner failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution of a notarized instrument. Furthermore, her bare allegation that her husband was abroad was insufficient to prove that he was not present at the time of the sale. On the issue of respondents being purchasers in good faith: The Court found it unnecessary to discuss the issue of good faith in detail, as there was no finding of fraud and the authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale were upheld. However, the Court reiterated that the sale was facilitated by petitioner's agent, who possessed the owner's duplicate Certificate of Title. The Torrens Act requires the production of the owner's certificate of title and the instrument of conveyance for registration. A registered owner who delivers these documents to an agent effectively represents to third parties that the agent is authorized to deal with the property. In the absence of clear and persuasive substantiation of bad faith, a presumption of good faith in favor of the respondents stands.
Main Doctrine
Forgery must be proven by clear and convincing evidence; it cannot be presumed. A registered owner who delivers the owner's duplicate certificate of title and an executed document of transfer to an agent effectively represents to a third party that the agent is authorized to deal with the property.