GR 160743; (August, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 160743; August 4, 2009
CORNELIA BALADAD (Represented by Heinrich M. Angeles and Rex Aaron A. Baladad), Petitioner, vs. SERGIO A. RUBLICO and SPOUSES LAUREANO F. YUPANO, Respondents.
FACTS
Two parcels of land were registered in the name of Julian Angeles. Upon his death, his compulsory heirs were his wife, Corazon Rublico, and his brother, Epitacio. On February 4, 1985, while on her deathbed, Corazon, through a thumbmark, and Epitacio, through his attorney-in-fact, executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale. This document adjudicated the properties to themselves and then sold them to petitioner Cornelia Baladad, Epitacio’s daughter. Corazon died two days later. Subsequently, respondent Sergio Rublico, Corazon’s son, executed an Affidavit of Adjudication claiming the properties as sole heir. He then sold the lots to respondent spouses Laureano and Felicidad Yupano, who obtained new titles.
ISSUE
The determinative issue is the validity of the Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Absolute Sale purportedly executed by Corazon prior to her death.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, upholding the validity of the deed. The document contains two severable contracts: an extrajudicial settlement and an absolute sale. For a contract to be valid, it must have consent, a certain object, and a cause. Respondents argued Corazon was too weak to give consent. The Court, however, found the notary public’s testimony credible—he read and explained the document to Corazon in Tagalog before she affixed her thumbmark. This established her conscious consent. The claim of forgery, based on a relative’s testimony that Corazon’s hand was guided, was deemed insufficient to overcome the notarial document’s presumption of regularity. Since the deed was valid, Corazon’s share was lawfully conveyed to Cornelia. Consequently, Sergio had no right to adjudicate the property to himself, making his subsequent sale to the Yupanos void. The Yupanos could not be buyers in good faith as they lived nearby and the tenants’ payment of rentals to Cornelia’s family constituted constructive notice of her claim. The Court reinstated the trial court’s decision annulling Sergio’s documents and the sale to the Yupanos, and ordered the cancellation of their titles in favor of Cornelia.