G.R. No. 78903 February 28, 1990
SPS. SEGUNDO DALION AND EPIFANIA SABESAJE-DALION, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND RUPERTO SABESAJE, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Ruperto Sabesaje, Jr. filed a suit for recovery of ownership over a parcel of land based on a private document of absolute sale dated July 1, 1965, allegedly executed by petitioner Segundo Dalion. The petitioners, spouses Dalion, denied the sale, contending the document was fictitious and Dalion’s signature was forged. They asserted the land was conjugal property acquired in 1960 from Saturnina Sabesaje. The spouses admitted administering other lands belonging to Sabesaje’s family but claimed the suit was a preemptive harassment to forestall Dalion’s own claim for unpaid commissions from this administration.
The trial court ruled in favor of Sabesaje, ordering the Dalions to deliver the land and execute a formal deed of conveyance. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, finding the sale valid. The appellate court upheld the trial court’s factual findings, including the identity of the land described in both the disputed deed and the petitioners’ own title document, noting identical boundaries.

ISSUE

The core issues are: (1) the validity of the contract of sale embodied in a private document, and (2) whether a public instrument is necessary for the transfer of ownership over the land.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. On the first issue, the Court upheld the validity of the sale. Against Dalion’s mere denial and claim of forgery, the positive testimonies of witnesses who saw the document executed and prepared it prevailed. The Court emphasized that a party alleging forgery must prove it with clear and convincing evidence, which petitioners failed to do. A comparison of the disputed signature with admitted specimens also showed no significant variance.
On the second issue, the Court clarified that Article 1358 of the Civil Code, which states that contracts creating real rights over immovable property should appear in a public instrument, is for convenience and not for validity or enforceability. A contract of sale of land is consensual and perfected by mere consent; no particular form is required for its validity. Upon perfection, the parties may reciprocally demand performance. Therefore, the private document of sale was valid and binding between the parties. The trial court correctly ordered the execution of a public deed, as such execution constitutes the constructive delivery of the land under Article 1498. The action for recovery of ownership was deemed proper as it sought the consummation of the perfected contract.