GR 176863; (October, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 176863; October 30, 2009
GREGORIO DESTREZA, Petitioner, vs. ATTY. MA. GRACIA RIĂ‘OZA-PLAZO and MA. FE ALARAS, Respondents.
FACTS
Pedro Riñoza died in 1989, leaving heirs including respondents Plazo and Alaras. During estate settlement, respondents discovered that a sugarland in Nasugbu, Batangas, originally covered by TCT No. 40353 in Riñoza’s name, was now registered under TCT No. 55396 in the names of petitioner Gregorio Destreza and his wife. The Register of Deeds initially stated no transactions involved the original title, yet a new title had been issued. Respondents found no record of the sale at the BIR and filed an action for nullification of the deed of absolute sale and TCT No. 55396.
Petitioner Destreza claimed he bought the land from Riñoza for ₱100,000 in June 1989, accompanied him to the Register of Deeds, and received TCT No. 55396 by mid-July 1989, thereafter taking possession. The RTC nullified the deed and title, citing the notary’s failure to submit his report and inconsistencies in Destreza’s claim. The CA affirmed but modified, removing the order for the estate to reimburse Destreza, holding the presumption of the deed’s regularity was destroyed by petitioner’s failure to prove its authenticity and by the discrepancy between the alleged payment (₱100,000) and the price in the deed (₱60,000).
ISSUE
Whether the Deed of Absolute Sale and the subsequent Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. 55396) issued in favor of petitioner Destreza are valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals and declared the Deed of Sale valid. The legal logic centered on the strength of a notarized document and the failure of respondents to overcome its presumptive validity. A notarized deed enjoys the presumption of regularity; it is a public document that carries evidentiary weight regarding its authenticity and due execution. The notary’s subsequent failure to submit his notarial report is an administrative lapse that does not nullify the deed itself. Respondents, as parties challenging the deed, bore the burden of presenting clear and convincing evidence to rebut this presumption, which they failed to do.
The Court found the respondents’ evidence insufficient. Their claim of a missing original title was contradicted by the Register of Deeds, who produced it. The absence of BIR records did not conclusively prove the sale did not occur. Meanwhile, petitioner’s immediate possession and cultivation of the land post-sale corroborated his claim. The discrepancy between the purchase price testified to and the amount in the deed was not fatal, as it did not disprove the sale’s existence. Since the deed was notarized and the respondents did not present strong evidence of forgery or fraud, the presumption of validity stood. Consequently, the cancellation of the old title and issuance of the new one were proper.