GR 129416; (November, 2004) (Digest)
G.R. No. 129416 . November 25, 2004.
ZENAIDA B. TIGNO, IMELDA B. TIGNO and ARMI B. TIGNO, petitioners, vs. SPOUSES ESTAFINO AQUINO and FLORENTINA AQUINO and the HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.
FACTS
The case originated from a 1978 Deed of Sale over an unregistered fishpond from Isidro Bustria to spouses Estafino and Florentina Aquino. This was followed by a 1981 compromise agreement, approved by the court, granting Bustria a right to repurchase after seven years. Bustria died in 1986. In 1989, petitioner Zenaida Tigno, Bustria’s heir, filed a Motion for Consignation to repurchase the property. The Aquinos opposed, and later, in an action for revival of judgment filed by Tigno, they presented a second Deed of Sale dated 1985, purportedly executed by Bustria, selling his right to repurchase back to the Aquinos. This document was notarized by former Judge Franklin Cariño. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) refused to admit this 1985 Deed of Sale, doubting its authenticity due to conflicting witness testimonies and the suspicious circumstances of its late presentation. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, admitting the document based on the presumption of regularity accorded to notarized instruments.
ISSUE
Whether the 1985 Deed of Sale, notarized by former Judge Franklin Cariño, was duly notarized and thus admissible in evidence with the benefit of the presumption of regularity.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC’s exclusion of the document. The legal logic centers on the invalid notarization. For a notarial act to be valid, the notary public must be duly commissioned at the time of notarization and within the territorial jurisdiction of the commission. The evidence revealed that Judge Cariño, who notarized the document in Pangasinan in 1985, had allowed his notarial commission for the Province of Baguio and the Mountain Province to lapse in 1980 and had not secured a new commission thereafter. Consequently, he lacked the authority to perform the notarial act. A document notarized by one without proper authority is not a public document and does not enjoy the presumption of regularity and due execution. It is considered a private document, requiring proof of its authenticity and due execution. Since the Aquinos failed to prove the document’s authenticity as a private instrument, the RTC correctly refused its admission. The right to repurchase under the 1981 compromise agreement thus remained enforceable by Bustria’s heirs.