In the Philippines, proving the validity of property ownership often hinges on the authenticity of documents. The Supreme Court, in Requina v. Erasmo, tackled a case involving a disputed land sale where the authenticity of a deed of sale was questioned. The Court sided with Requino, emphasizing the importance of proving the legitimacy of signatures in property transactions and reinforcing the principle that forged documents have no legal effect. This ruling underscores the need for thorough verification and due diligence in land dealings to protect property rights against fraudulent claims.

Dubious Deeds: Unraveling a Forgery Claim in a Land Ownership Battle

This case revolves around a parcel of land in Cebu City originally owned by Gregorio Bagano. Upon his death, the land was divided among his heirs, including Florentino Bagano, who received a 390 square meter portion. Atty. Lawrence Parawan rented Florentino’s lot and built a house on a 102 square meter section. Subsequently, Atty. Parawan sold the house to Dr. Enrique Hipolito, Sr., who then sold it to Rufino B. Requina, Sr. and Aurea U. Ereño. Later, Florentino died, and his sole heir, Rosalita Bagano Nevado, executed an Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale transferring the 102 square meter portion to Requina and Ereño. However, after a fire, Requino learned that Eleuteria B. Erasmo was claiming ownership based on a Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989. This led to a legal battle to determine the rightful owner of the property.

The heart of the legal dispute centered on whether the Deed of Sale presented by Erasmo was genuine. Requina argued that the deed was a forgery and presented evidence to support this claim. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of Requina, declaring Erasmo’s deeds of sale void and upholding the validity of Requina’s Affidavit of Adjudication. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, prompting Requina to elevate the case to the Supreme Court.

At the Supreme Court, the central issue was whether Requino successfully demonstrated that the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, was indeed a spurious document. The Court emphasized that while it is not a trier of facts, exceptions apply when the CA’s findings conflict with those of the trial court, particularly when there is a misappreciation of facts. Here, the Supreme Court found sufficient grounds to overturn the CA’s decision.

The Supreme Court pointed out several irregularities in the notarization of Erasmo’s Deed of Sale. Public documents, such as notarized deeds of sale, carry a presumption of regularity. However, this presumption only holds if the notarization process is beyond dispute. A defective notarization strips the document of its public character, reducing it to a private instrument that requires additional proof of due execution and authenticity. In this case, the Court found the circumstances surrounding the notarization of the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, highly suspicious.

First, there were discrepancies in the notarial details when comparing the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, with another Deed of Sale dated May 8, 1989, also notarized by the same lawyer. The timeline suggested that the lawyer would have had to process an implausibly high number of notarial books in a short period. Second, the Records Management and Archives Office certified that it did not have a copy of the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, in its records. Although this omission alone does not establish forgery, the respondent failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the missing document.

Building on this, the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, was notarized on January 31, 1990. This raised questions about how the notary public could verify the signatures of the parties involved 75 days after they purportedly signed the deed. Moreover, Erasmo’s Residence Certificate, presented as proof of identity, was only procured on January 3, 1990, making it impossible for her to have signed the document on November 17, 1989. The Supreme Court underscored that notarization is not a mere formality; it is an act invested with substantive public interest that requires the physical presence of the signatory before the notary public.

The Supreme Court also considered expert testimony regarding the authenticity of Florentino Bagano’s signature on the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989. Document examiner Romeo Varona testified that, in his expert opinion, the signature was a forgery. While expert opinions are not binding on the courts, they can be persuasive, particularly when coupled with other evidence of irregularity. Moreover, Section 22 of Rule 132 of the Rules of Court explicitly authorizes the court, by itself, to make a comparison of the disputed handwriting with writings admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

The Supreme Court, conducting its own comparison, found marked differences between Florentino’s signature on the disputed Deed of Sale and his signature on other documents. It was deemed unbelievable that Florentino’s signature would significantly change in only six months without any explanation for such a drastic alteration. Therefore, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ finding, concluding that the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, was indeed a forgery.

Other circumstances further supported the conclusion that the Deed of Sale was spurious. Erasmo presented two deeds of sale, one for 50 square meters and another for 195 square meters, executed only six months apart, despite claiming to have purchased the lots through installments beginning in 1985. She failed to provide credible evidence of these installment payments. Furthermore, Erasmo did not exercise any acts of ownership over the property until 2001, and she never asserted her rights as a lessor to Dr. Hipolito or informed the occupants of her alleged ownership. Finally, contrary to the CA’s finding, Erasmo only declared the property for real estate taxation in 2007, long after the legal dispute had commenced. The Court cited Heirs of Alida v. Campano, reiterating that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership, but merely indicia that the persons paying the real property tax possess the property in the concept of an owner.

The Supreme Court also addressed the issue of double sale under Article 1544 of the Civil Code. This article provides rules for determining ownership when the same property is sold to different buyers. The Court found that even if both sales were valid, Requino registered the land first in good faith, unaware of the prior sale to Erasmo. Therefore, Requino’s right to the property was superior to Erasmo’s. Citing Rosaroso v. Soria, the Court emphasized the importance of good faith in acquiring and registering property. In this case, Erasmo’s failure to take possession of the property or inform the occupants of her alleged ownership demonstrated a lack of good faith.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court sided with Requino, declaring the Deed of Sale dated November 17, 1989, a forgery and upholding the validity of Requino’s Deed of Sale dated October 30, 1993, and the Affidavit of Adjudication with Sale dated March 15, 1994. The Court determined that Requino had a better right to the subject property, as Erasmo’s claim was based on a forged document and a lack of good faith.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether the Deed of Sale presented by Eleuteria Erasmo was a forgery, and if so, who had the better right to the disputed property.
What did the Supreme Court decide?	The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rufino Requina, declaring the Deed of Sale presented by Erasmo a forgery and recognizing Requina’s right to the property.
Why did the Court find the Deed of Sale to be a forgery?	The Court found irregularities in the notarization process, discrepancies in the notary’s records, and expert testimony confirming that the signature on the deed was forged.
What is the significance of notarization in property transactions?	Notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in evidence without further proof of authenticity, provided the notarization process is regular and beyond dispute.
What is Article 1544 of the Civil Code about?	Article 1544 addresses the issue of double sale, providing rules for determining ownership when the same property is sold to different buyers, prioritizing the buyer who first registers the property in good faith.
What does it mean to purchase property in good faith?	Purchasing property in good faith means buying it without knowledge of any defects in the seller’s title or any prior claims on the property by others.
How did the Court use the expert witness testimony?	The Court considered the expert testimony regarding the signature, alongside other evidence, to support its conclusion that the Deed of Sale was a forgery.
Why did the Court disregard the Court of Appeals ruling?	The Supreme Court found that the Court of Appeals misapprehended the facts and failed to give sufficient weight to the evidence presented by Requina.

This case serves as a potent reminder of the importance of due diligence and thorough verification in property transactions. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on the authenticity of documents and the need for good faith in land dealings reinforces the protection of property rights under Philippine law. It underscores the principle that forged documents have no legal effect and that those who rely on them cannot claim valid ownership.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RUFINO B. REQUINA, SR. v. ELEUTERIA B. ERASMO, G.R. No. 221049, December 07, 2022