Aguinaldo v. Torres
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners Spouses Edgardo M. Aguinaldo and Nelia T. Torres-Aguinaldo (petitioners) filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title, and damages against respondent Artemio T. Torres, Jr. (respondent). Petitioners claimed to be the registered owners of three lots. They discovered that the titles were transferred to respondent, who allegedly caused the execution of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979 (1979 deed of sale) through fraud, deceit, and stealth. Respondent denied participation in the 1979 deed of sale and averred that the properties were validly sold through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 10, 1991 (1991 deed of sale). He claimed petitioners caused the registration of the 1979 deed and transfer of title, estopping them from impugning it, and that the action had prescribed. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, finding that petitioners validly sold the properties to respondent, supported by Nelia's admission in a letter dated November 12, 1998. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision. While the CA found the 1979 deed of sale spurious, it upheld the validity of the sale based on the 1991 deed of sale, whose authenticity was supported by NBI reports on petitioners' genuine signatures, Nelia's admission, and respondent's payment of real property taxes. However, the CA noted the improper notarization of the 1991 deed of sale and ordered petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance. The CA denied petitioners' motion for reconsideration. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari assailing the CA's ruling that there was a valid conveyance of the subject properties and its directive for them to execute a registrable deed of conveyance.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in ruling that there was a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent, considering the validity of the 1979 and 1991 Deeds of Sale and the effect of improper notarization. Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in directing petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of respondent within thirty (30) days from the finality of the decision, and the legal basis for such a directive.
Ruling
The petition is DENIED. The Decision dated May 20, 2015 and the Resolution dated July 14, 2016 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 96014 are AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 21, 1979, as well as Transfer Certificates of Title Nos. T-305318, T-305319, and T-305320 in the name of respondent Artemio Torres, Jr. NULL and VOID. Petitioners are DIRECTED to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent's favor within thirty (30) days from finality of this Decision, in accordance with the prescribed form under Articles 1357 and 1358 (1) of the Civil Code. In case of non-compliance, respondent has the option to file a motion for an order divesting petitioners' title.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the conveyance to respondent: The Court affirmed the CA's finding that the 1979 Deed of Absolute Sale was spurious, rendering the resulting titles void. However, despite the improper notarization of the 1991 Deed of Absolute Sale, a valid conveyance was established based on the genuineness of petitioners' signatures, Nelia's admission of the sale, and respondent's consistent payment of real property taxes. The improper notarization stripped the deed of its public character but did not invalidate the sale itself. Forgery was not proven. On the directive to execute a registrable deed of conveyance: The Court upheld the CA's directive for petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance, as a necessary consequence of upholding the sale's validity and to properly vest title and ownership. This directive is in accordance with Articles 1357 and 1358 (1) of the Civil Code. Failure to comply may result in a court order divesting their title.
Main Doctrine
A forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title. However, even if a deed of sale is improperly notarized, if its due execution and authenticity are proven by evidence of genuine signatures and admissions, the sale remains valid between the parties, and they may be compelled to execute a registrable deed of conveyance.