G.R. No. 244076 . March 16, 2022
FELIX CHINGKOE AND ROSITA CHINGKOE, PETITIONERS, VS. FAUSTINO CHINGKOE AND GLORIA CHINGKOE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Respondents Faustino Chingkoe and Gloria Chingkoe were the registered owners of a parcel of land. Faustino alleged that in 1990, he allowed his brother, petitioner Felix Chingkoe, to occupy the property. Upon the request of their mother, Tan Po Chu, Faustino signed an undated Deed of Sale in favor of Felix, with Tan Po Chu assuring him she would keep it only to appease Felix, who was becoming an alcoholic. Felix, however, averred that he purchased the property from Faustino on October 10, 1994, for P3,130,000.00, and both parties signed a Deed of Sale before notary public Atty. Reynaldo Z. Calabio. Faustino refused to surrender the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, preventing its transfer, and later mortgaged the property to a bank. Felix filed a complaint for specific performance with damages. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of Felix, upholding the notarized Deed of Sale’s presumption of regularity and noting the notary public’s testimony that both parties appeared before him. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, giving credence to Tan Po Chu’s testimony that Faustino signed only to appease Felix without intent to sell and holding that Felix failed to prove payment of the purchase price, rendering the contract void for lack of consideration.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC’s decision and in holding that the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale was void for lack of consideration, based primarily on the testimony of Tan Po Chu.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the RTC ruling. The notarized Deed of Sale enjoys the presumption of regularity, authenticity, and due execution, which can only be overturned by clear and convincing evidence. The CA erred in relying solely on the testimony of Tan Po Chu to overturn this presumption. Her testimony was insufficient as she admitted she could not read the document, did not know its contents or the contract price, was not present during its signing and notarization, and did not participate in its preparation. In contrast, the notary public testified to the parties’ appearance before him, and Faustino failed to present clear evidence to rebut the Deed’s regularity. Furthermore, the CA incorrectly concluded a lack of consideration; the stated purchase price in a contract is presumed true until disproved, and Faustino did not sufficiently prove non-payment. The contract, containing the essential requisites of consent, object, and cause, was valid and binding. The Supreme Court also denied Felix’s claim for actual damages due to unsubstantiated lost business opportunity.