Lopez v. Potoy
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Spouses Ronico and Marcelina Lopez and Spouses Gloria and Nicomedes Adorza (petitioners) filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages against respondents. Petitioners sought to quiet title over a parcel of land registered in their name, which was originally part of a larger lot registered in the names of Ronico and Gloria's parents. Petitioners denied executing any deed of conveyance for the subject property, asserting that respondents' claim of acquiring a portion was baseless. Respondents, however, countered that the parents sold a two-hectare portion of the lot to Agustin Potoy, evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale, and that Agustin subsequently filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim. 2. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Ormoc City, initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding their claim to be supported by the preponderance of evidence and ordering the respondents to respect their ownership. The RTC found the respondents' claim to be without merit, noting their failure to prove their relationship to Agustin Potoy, to establish the specific portion sold, and that the cancellation of the adverse claim was not initiated by the petitioners. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed and set aside the RTC's decision, upholding the validity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale and finding that the petitioners failed to present clear and convincing evidence to overturn the presumption of regularity. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals. They argue that the CA committed reversible error in dismissing their Complaint for Quieting of Title by according undue weight to the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale. Specifically, they contend that the presumption should not apply when the notary public expressed uncertainty regarding the identity and capacities of the parties to the instrument. The petitioners reiterate their denial of executing any deed of sale, though they do not allege forgery of the signatures.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals committed reversible error in dismissing the Complaint for Quieting of Title anchored on the presumption of regularity accorded to the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale; and the burden of proof to overcome this presumption. Whether the presumption of regularity of a notarized document can be applied, considering the weight of the Notary Public's testimony, the validity of the sale, the respondents' possession, and the requisites for an action to quiet title.
Ruling
The petition is devoid of merit. The Decision dated January 24, 2019 and the Resolution dated November 5, 2019 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04771 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the presumption of regularity of a notarized deed of absolute sale and the burden of proof: The Court held that a notarized instrument enjoys the presumption of regularity. To overcome this presumption, clear and convincing evidence is required. Petitioners, who denied the due execution of the deed, had the burden of proving they neither appeared before the notary public nor acknowledged the deed. They failed to present sufficient evidence to overcome the notary's testimony. On the application of the presumption of regularity, the weight of the Notary Public's testimony, the validity of the sale, respondents' possession, and the requisites for an action to quiet title: The testimony of a notary public enjoys greater credence. The undisputed possession of the property by the respondents since 1969 served as convincing evidence of the sale. For an action to quiet title to prosper, the deed must be shown to be invalid. Petitioners failed to prove that no deed of sale was executed; therefore, the action to quiet title must fail.
Main Doctrine
A notarized deed of absolute sale enjoys the presumption of regularity and validity. To overcome this presumption, clear and convincing evidence is required. Mere denial without substantiating evidence is insufficient to invalidate a notarized document.