Requina v. Erasmo
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over a 102-square meter portion of a residential lot located at Urgello Street, Cebu City. The property was originally part of a larger lot owned by Gregorio Bagano. Upon his death, his heir Florentino Bagano inherited a 390-square meter share. Florentino's lot was leased by Atty. Lawrence Parawan, who constructed a house on a 102-square meter section. This house was subsequently sold to Dr. Enrique Hipolito, Sr., and then to petitioners Rufino B. Requina, Sr. and Aurea U. Ereño. After Florentino's death, his sole heir, Rosalita Bagano Nevado, executed an Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale on March 15, 1994, transferring the 102-square meter portion occupied by the house to the petitioners. Petitioners registered this affidavit, paid taxes on the property, and possessed it until a fire in 2001. The dispute arose when respondent Eleuteria B. Erasmo presented a Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, claiming ownership of a portion of the same lot. 2. Procedural History: Petitioners filed a complaint for Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Sale, seeking to invalidate respondent's claim and praying for possession and ownership. They argued that respondent's Deed of Sale was void due to simulation or fictitiousness. Respondent, in her defense, presented two deeds of sale: one dated May 8, 1989, for 50 square meters, and another dated November 17, 1989, for 195 square meters, totaling 245 square meters. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring respondent's deeds of sale void and upholding the validity of petitioners' Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale. The RTC found the deeds of sale in favor of respondent to be dubious, citing irregularities in their execution, delayed tax declarations, lack of assertion of ownership, absence of the November 17, 1989 deed from archival records, and expert testimony suggesting forgery of Florentino Bagano's signature. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, finding that petitioners failed to establish forgery with clear and convincing evidence and that the notarization, while having some irregularities, did not invalidate the deeds. The CA also found Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale inapplicable. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed a Petition for Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the dispositions of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the CA erred in reversing the RTC's findings, particularly regarding the forgery of the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989. Petitioners reiterate their arguments that the notarization of the deed was irregular, evidenced by conflicting dates and an improbable number of notarial books consumed by the notary public. They also emphasize the expert testimony of Document Examiner Romeo Varona, who concluded that Florentino Bagano's signature on the November 17, 1989 deed was forged, and that the signature differed significantly from genuine specimens. Furthermore, petitioners contend that respondent's claim of paying taxes since 1980 is inaccurate, as records show payments only from 2004-2007, and that respondent never took possession of the property or asserted her rights as owner, which, coupled with the other irregularities, demonstrates bad faith. Petitioners pray for the reversal of the CA's decision and the reinstatement of the RTC's ruling, which declared their title valid and respondent's Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, void.
Issue(s)
Whether the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, is a spurious document. Whether Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale is applicable. Who between the petitioners and the respondent has a better right over the subject property.
Ruling
The petition is GRANTED. The Decision dated February 26, 2015, and Resolution dated September 23, 2015, of the Court of Appeals are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. A new judgment is ENTERED in favor of petitioners: 1) Declaring the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, for 195 square meters as a forgery, and therefore, NULL and VOID; 2) Declaring the Deed of Sale dated October 30, 1993, and the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale dated March 15, 1994, over 102 square meter portion of Lot No. 1442-Q in favor of petitioners, VALID and enforceable, and therefore, rightfully entitled to the subject property; 3) Declaring the Deed of Sale dated May 8, 1989, for 50 square meters as not part of the subject property of the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of whether the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, is a spurious document: The Supreme Court found the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, to be spurious. The Court noted several irregularities in its notarization, including the improbable number of notarial books consumed by the notary public within a short period and the discrepancy in the dates of execution and notarization relative to the procurement of residence certificates. Furthermore, the Records Management and Archives Office certified that the deed was not in their records, and the respondent failed to explain this omission or present the notary public as a witness. The Court also gave significant weight to the testimony of the document examiner who concluded that Florentino Bagano's signature on the deed was forged, citing specific differences in letter formation and handwriting characteristics when compared to genuine signatures. The Court's own comparison of the signatures also revealed marked differences, leading to the conclusion that the signature was a forgery. The Court emphasized that while notarization creates a presumption of regularity, this presumption can be overcome by clear and convincing evidence of defects, as was present in this case. On the issue of whether Article 1544 of the Civil Code on double sale is applicable: The Supreme Court initially noted that Article 1544 applies to the sale of the same thing to different vendees by the same vendor. However, even assuming the validity of both sales, the Court found that the petitioners had a better right. The petitioners registered their Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale in good faith and took possession of the property. The respondent, despite having earlier titles, failed to take possession, assert her rights, or register her claim for many years, indicating a lack of good faith and diligence. The Court also pointed out that the respondent's claim of paying taxes since 1980 was inaccurate, with actual payments only starting in 2007 for a limited period. The Court reiterated that registration must be coupled with good faith, and a registration made in bad faith is as if there was no registration at all. In this case, the respondent's prolonged inaction and failure to assert ownership, coupled with the findings of forgery and irregular notarization, negated any claim of good faith. On the issue of who between the petitioners and the respondent has a better right over the subject property: The Supreme Court ruled that the petitioners have a better right to the subject property. The Court found the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, in favor of the respondent to be a forgery and thus null and void. Consequently, the respondent conveyed nothing to the petitioners through this document. In contrast, the petitioners' claim was based on a Deed of Sale dated October 30, 1993, and a valid Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale dated March 15, 1994, which were properly published and registered. These documents clearly established the petitioners' ownership and right to possess the 102-square meter portion of the property. The Court also clarified that the Deed of Sale dated May 8, 1989, for 50 square meters was not part of the disputed property claimed by the petitioners. Therefore, the petitioners' title and possession were deemed valid and superior to any claim by the respondent based on the spurious deed.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, finding the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, to be a spurious document due to irregularities in its notarization and evidence of forgery of the seller's signature. Consequently, the petitioners, who acquired rights through a valid Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale, were declared to have a better right to the property.