Lim-Chingco v. Terariray
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiff-appellant Vicente Nery Lim-chingco claimed ownership of a parcel of land based on a public document evidencing its sale to him on October 3, 1889, by a person who represented himself as Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco. Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco, husband of defendant Crisanta Terariray and father of the other defendants, died on November 4, 1902. The plaintiff sought to recover possession of the land from the widow and children. Procedural History: The court below rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. The plaintiff appealed the decision to the Supreme Court via a bill of exceptions. The Petition: The principal issue was whether the person who executed the deed of sale was indeed Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco. The plaintiff also argued that the registration of the deed in the registry of property made him the owner, and that Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied. Evidence offered by the plaintiff, including an inventory of the deceased's property and a protest against it, was rejected by the trial court.
Issue(s)
Whether the person who executed the deed of sale was the true Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco. Whether the registration of a forged deed in the registry of property validates the instrument and confers ownership. Whether Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to an action brought against the heirs of the person who allegedly signed the instrument.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court below, ruling in favor of the defendants. The Court held that the deed of sale was a forgery and therefore null and void. The registration of the forged deed did not validate it, nor did it confer any rights upon the plaintiff. The Court also found that Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not apply to the action brought against the heirs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the identity of the seller: The Court affirmed the finding of the court below that the person who executed the deed of sale was not the true Marcelo Quintano Lao-Yuco. The evidence showed that Marcelo Quintano, with his wife, went to China in 1888 and returned in 1891, resuming possession of the lands until his death. The plaintiff's claim that Marcelo returned briefly in the fall of 1889 to execute instruments was not sufficiently supported by evidence. The court below likely considered the contract of lease presented by the plaintiff to be fictitious, given its execution in Cebu when the parties resided in Camiguin, along with other circumstances. On the effect of registration of a forged deed: The Court held that the registration of a forged deed in the registry of property does not validate the instrument. Article 33 of the Mortgage Law explicitly states that the record of instruments or contracts which are null in accordance with the law are not validated thereby. Therefore, the inscription of the forged deed could not give the plaintiff any additional rights, and the deed remained null and void. On the applicability of Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure: The Court ruled that Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not apply to an action brought against the heirs of the person who allegedly signed the instrument. The purpose of the enactment was to relieve a party of the burden of proving facts necessarily within the knowledge of the adverse party, and it was reasonably construed to apply only to instruments where the action is brought against the maker thereof, or where a counterclaim or defense is founded against the maker.
Main Doctrine
A forged deed, even if recorded in the registry of property, is null and void and cannot convey ownership or validate any claim of title. The record of instruments that are null in accordance with law does not validate them.