Heirs of Malaque v. Heirs of Malaque
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondents, Heirs of Salomon Malaque, filed a complaint for partition, annulment of quitclaim and adjudication, accounting, and damages against petitioners, Heirs of Lope Malaque. Salomon Malaque owned Lot No. 3974. After Salomon and his wife Marciana died, only Lope occupied and cultivated the property. Upon Lope's death, petitioners continued cultivation without sharing with respondents. Respondents discovered a Tax Declaration in Lope's name and upon inquiry, petitioners refused partition, claiming ownership via a Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication dated December 31, 1976, allegedly signed by Sabina, Catalina, and Hilario, waiving their shares to Lope and Loty. Sabina, Catalina, and Hilario denied executing this deed, claiming their signatures were forged and that they were not the only heirs. Respondents sought to partition the remaining 8,032 square meters of Lot 3974 (Lot 3974-B), declare the Deed of Quitclaim void, and account for proceeds. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondents, declaring the Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication void ab initio for being simulated and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The RTC ordered partition and accounting. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC's decision, finding the Deed of Quitclaim void for lack of consideration and non-compliance with donation requirements, and also affirming the nullity of a prior Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights for not all co-owners signing and lack of understanding by signatories. The CA ruled that acquisitive prescription had not set in as there was no clear repudiation of co-ownership. The Petition: Petitioners seek review of the CA's decision, arguing they established ownership through the Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights, coupled with undisturbed possession for over 50 years. They contend that respondents failed to prove forgery and fraud by clear and convincing evidence.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication dated December 31, 1976, is null and void due to forgery, fraud, and misrepresentation. Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights dated March 2, 1970, is null and void. Whether respondents established their cause of action for partition, annulment, and accounting by the required quantum of evidence.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are reversed and set aside. Respondents' complaint is dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the nullity of the Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication: The Court held that the respondents failed to prove forgery by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. While respondents alleged forgery, their testimonies admitted affixing signatures or thumbmarks, claiming they did not understand the import of the document. Catalina's signature appeared similar to her signature when single, and Hilario admitted his thumbmark was affixed to prevent property confiscation. Crucially, the Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication is a duly notarized document, enjoying a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. To overturn this presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant, which respondents failed to provide. The Court noted that respondents' claim that only three heirs signed, while Marcelina and Agripino did not, contradicted their own prayer to partition only the remaining portion after a portion was already sold to Eusebia Calope, implying some validity to the overall transaction. On the nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights: The Court found that respondents failed to specifically deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights, as required by Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court. This failure implied an admission of its due execution and genuineness. Furthermore, respondents did not adequately prove fraud or misrepresentation in its execution. Agripino admitted signing, though he claimed it was a mortgage, not a sale, but never attempted to redeem it. Catalina made no denial of its execution. The Court emphasized that a sale of real property, even if not in a public instrument, is valid and binding between the parties. Article 1358 of the Civil Code only requires public documents for efficacy, not validity. The deed was in Cebuano, their language, suggesting they understood its import, and was executed in the presence of their Barangay Captain. Thus, respondents failed to discharge their burden to prove fraud or misrepresentation. On the respondents' cause of action: The Court concluded that respondents failed to discharge their burden to prove forgery, fraud, and misrepresentation by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The documentary evidence presented by petitioners, including the notarized Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication, the Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights, tax declarations, and tax receipts, prevailed over the testimonial evidence of respondents, which was found insufficient. The undisturbed possession, cultivation, and payment of real property taxes by petitioners for a long period strengthened their claim of ownership. The Court found it contradictory for respondents to seek to void the Deed of Quitclaim while implicitly acknowledging the validity of a portion thereof concerning the sale to Eusebia Calope. Therefore, respondents failed to prove their cause of action, leading to the dismissal of their complaint.
Main Doctrine
The nullity of a notarized document must be proven by clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant evidence to overcome the prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Allegations of forgery must be substantiated by clear, positive, and convincing evidence, and the burden of proof lies with the party alleging it. A private document, even if not notarized, is valid and binding between the parties if it produces legal effects, and its validity is not affected by the absence of a public instrument, which only serves to ensure efficacy.