GR 104802; (July, 2001) (Digest)
G.R. No. 104802, July 11, 2001
AURELIA S. LLANA, PASCUAL LLANA and PRIMITIVO SALES, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, NICANOR PAGDILAO and ANDRES BAUTISTA, respondents.
FACTS
Private respondents Nicanor Pagdilao and Andres Bautista filed an action to quiet title against petitioners Aurelia Llana, et al., claiming ownership over six parcels of land purchased from petitioners through three duly notarized deeds of sale executed in 1966. Private respondents alleged that petitioners subsequently entered the lots and tried to acquire possession by force. In a second cause of action, they claimed that Bonifacio Llana (deceased husband of Aurelia) obtained a loan from Nicanor Pagdilao which remained unpaid. Petitioners countered that the deeds of sale were simulated, executed only upon Nicanor Pagdilao’s misrepresentation to prevent the properties from being attached to answer for Bonifacio’s civil liability in a homicide case, with no actual transfer of ownership intended. They also contended that the loan had been paid by conveying two parcels of land. The Court of First Instance (CFI) ruled in favor of private respondents, declaring them owners of the lots, ordering petitioners to deliver possession and pay rentals, and ordering payment of the loan. The Court of Appeals affirmed the CFI decision in toto.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in giving credence to the absolute deeds of sale despite parol testimony alleging they did not reflect the true intention of the parties.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not dismissing the second cause of action regarding the unpaid loan.
RULING
The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals.
1. The Court upheld the factual findings of the lower courts, noting that the Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. The deeds of sale were signed by both parties, duly notarized, and registered. A document acknowledged before a notary public enjoys the presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated. To overcome this presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. Petitioners failed to present such evidence, relying only on the self-serving testimony of petitioner Aurelia Llana, which is inadequate to establish their claim. Parol evidence was properly allowed as the validity of the agreements was in issue, but petitioners’ evidence was insufficient to prove the deeds were simulated.
2. The Court found no evidence, other than Aurelia Llana’s testimony, to prove that Bonifacio Llana had paid the debt to Nicanor Pagdilao. Nothing in the relevant deed of sale indicated that the conveyance of two lots was in payment of said debt. Therefore, the lower courts’ ruling on the second cause of action was sustained.