G.R. No. 105647 July 31, 2001
HEIRS OF ERNESTO BIONA, NAMELY: EDITHA B. BLANCAFLOR, MARIANITA D. DE JESUS, VILMA B. BLANCAFLOR, ELSIE B. RAMOS and PERLITA B. CARMEN, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS and LEOPOLDO HILAJOS, respondents.

FACTS

On October 23, 1953, Ernesto Biona was awarded Homestead Patent No. V-840 over a 10-hectare parcel of land, and Original Certificate of Title No. (V-2323) P-3831 was issued in his name. He died on June 12, 1956, leaving his wife Soledad and five daughters as heirs. On March 1, 1960, Soledad Biona obtained a P1,000 loan from Leopoldo Hilajos, mortgaging the property and agreeing that Hilajos would occupy and enjoy its usufruct for two years. Soledad failed to pay the debt after two years, and Hilajos continued occupying the land. On July 3, 1962, Hilajos paid P1,400 to the Development Bank of the Philippines to cancel a prior mortgage on the property constituted by the Biona spouses. Hilajos then occupied the property peacefully and publicly for over twenty-five years, declaring it for taxation, paying realty taxes, and causing it to be tenanted. On June 19, 1985, the heirs filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, possession, accounting, and damages against Hilajos. Hilajos claimed that on September 11, 1961, Soledad Biona sold him the property for P4,300, evidenced by a handwritten and unnotarized deed of sale, to prevent foreclosure by the DBP. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the heirs, ordering Hilajos to vacate portions of the land. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, dismissing the complaint and ordering the heirs to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of Hilajos.

ISSUE

The pivotal issue is whether the handwritten, unnotarized deed of sale is valid and effectively conveyed ownership of the subject property to private respondent Leopoldo Hilajos.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the deed of sale, though a private document, is valid and enforceable. The requirement under Article 1358 of the Civil Code that acts conveying real rights over immovable property appear in a public document is for convenience, not for validity or enforceability. The authenticity of Soledad Biona’s signature on the deed was upheld based on the trial court’s finding that the signatures on the deed and on an acknowledgment receipt for partial payment were genuine, and this finding was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Court also ruled that the action of the heirs to recover the property was barred by laches. Hilajos had been in continuous, open, and notorious possession of the land in the concept of an owner for over twenty-five years, paying taxes and introducing tenants, without any objection from the heirs until 1985. The heirs’ long inaction and failure to assert their rights, while Hilajos performed acts of ownership, precluded them from recovering the property.