G.R. No. L-40953 April 15, 1988
LOURDES LUKBAN-ANG, as heir and administratrix of the intestate estates of Concepcion Lukban y Rilles & Rafaela Lukban y Rilles, petitioner, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, ROSARIO LUKBAN & THE HEIRS OF MIGUEL LUKBAN Y MARTINEZ, respondents.

FACTS

Concepcion Lukban, a childless woman, allegedly executed a deed of donation on April 8, 1939, and later a deed of absolute sale on July 31, 1939, conveying her substantial properties to her half-brother, Miguel Lukban. Both documents were notarized by Manuel Moreno and witnessed by Miguel’s wife, Rosario Balce, and another witness. Concepcion died in 1941, and Miguel predeceased her in 1940. The existence of these documents remained undisclosed for decades. In 1967, petitioner Lourdes Lukban-Ang, an heir of Concepcion’s full brother, initiated intestate proceedings. Subsequently, the heirs of Miguel sought to register the 1939 deed of sale. Lourdes then filed a complaint to declare the donation and sale null, alleging forgery, lack of consent and consideration, and that they were executed through fraud and connivance during Concepcion’s ill health.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the documents authentic. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the petitioner failed to prove forgery by clear, strong, and convincing evidence. The appellate court noted the documents were public instruments enjoying the presumption of regularity, and the long delay in questioning their authenticity undermined the petitioner’s claims.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in upholding the authenticity and validity of the Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Concepcion Lukban in favor of Miguel Lukban.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the Deed of Donation and Deed of Absolute Sale null and void. The legal logic centered on the failure of the respondents to overcome the serious doubts surrounding the documents’ authenticity. While notarized documents carry a presumption of regularity, this presumption is disputable and must yield to contrary evidence. The Court found the circumstances highly suspicious: the principal witnesses to the instruments were the donee/vendee’s own wife and a notary public whose whereabouts were unknown; the properties were not delivered to Miguel, and Concepcion continued to deal with them (mortgaging and granting right of way) after the alleged donation and sale; and there was an inexplicable, inordinate delay of 28 years in registering the sale, which was only attempted after intestate proceedings were commenced. These facts collectively indicated that the documents were not genuine voluntary acts. The Court ruled that the respondents, as beneficiaries asserting the documents’ validity, had the burden to prove their due execution. Their evidence, primarily the testimony of a handwriting expert based on questionable exemplars, was insufficient to establish authenticity. Consequently, the properties remained part of Concepcion’s estate for legal distribution. However, due to the petitioner’s own laches in settling the estate for 26 years, the respondents were ordered to account for and deliver the fruits of the properties only from the date the intestate proceedings were filed in 1967.