G.R. No. 141323; June 8, 2005
DAVID V. PELAYO and LORENZA B. PELAYO, Petitioners, vs. MELKI E. PEREZ, Respondent.

FACTS

Petitioners David and Lorenza Pelayo executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 11, 1988, conveying two agricultural lots to respondent Melki Perez. Lorenza signed only on the third page as a witness, causing the Register of Deeds to deny registration due to the absence of her signature as a spouse on the first and second pages. Perez filed a complaint for specific performance to compel Lorenza to sign. The Pelayos moved to dismiss, arguing the contract was unenforceable for non-registration within three months from the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on June 15, 1988, as required by Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. They also claimed the sale was simulated, lacked consideration, and was executed without Lorenza’s marital consent.
The trial court dismissed the complaint, later declaring the deed null and void for lack of consideration and marital consent, ordering the Pelayos to pay Perez ₱10,000 for services rendered. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding the deed valid and enforceable. It ruled Lorenza’s consent was implied by her signing as a witness, and the Pelayos failed to prove the absence of consideration. The CA ordered Lorenza to sign all pages of the deed.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale valid and enforceable despite the alleged lack of marital consent, consideration, and non-compliance with the registration requirement under CARL.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA Decision. On the issue of marital consent, the Court ruled that Lorenza’s signature as an instrumental witness to the deed is proof of her knowledge and consent to the transaction. Her consent is presumed, and she failed to present clear evidence of vitiation. Regarding consideration, the deed itself, a public document, enjoys the presumption of consideration. The Pelayos’ claim of simulation was not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence. David Pelayo, a lawyer, is presumed to have executed the deed with full knowledge.
Concerning the CARL registration requirement, the Court clarified that Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 applies only to transactions involving agricultural lands covered by the agrarian reform program. The petitioners failed to prove the subject lands were so covered. The provision is not a general statute of frauds for all land sales. The requirement for registration within three months is a condition for the validity of the contract against the government under agrarian reform, not a condition for its enforceability between the parties. The unregistered deed remains valid and binding inter partes. The Pelayos’ procedural lapse in failing to file an appellee’s brief at the CA also barred a re-litigation of factual issues.