G.R. No. 142309 ; January 30, 2009
JUAN DELA RAMA and EUGENIA DELA RAMA, Petitioners, vs. OSCAR PAPA and AMEUERFINA PAPA, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner spouses Juan and Eugenia dela Rama were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Calamba, Laguna, covered by TCT No. 91166. In 1992, they discovered their title had been cancelled and a new one, TCT No. 102128, issued in favor of respondent spouses Oscar and Ameurfina Papa, pursuant to a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 29, 1985, which identified the petitioners as vendors and the respondents as vendees. Petitioners filed a complaint for “Cancellation of Title Obtained Under Forged Deed of Sale,” claiming their signatures on the 1985 deed were forged. They denied executing the deed or conveying the property, noting Juan dela Rama had been a U.S. resident since 1984 and a citizen since 1989. Respondent Oscar Papa, formerly an Assistant Vice-President of the Laguna Estate Development Corporation (LEDC), a marketing arm of the previous owner Canlubang Sugar Estate (CSE), testified he did not recall signing the deed in front of the notary public, Atty. William Gumtang, did not see petitioners sign it, and never met Juan dela Rama. He claimed it was standard practice in real estate for the buyer to sign first and for parties not to meet. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) annulled the deed, cancelled respondents’ title, and reinstated petitioners’ title, finding preponderant evidence of forgery and that respondents were not buyers in good faith. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding petitioners failed to prove forgery by clear and convincing evidence, noting they did not properly prove handwriting under the Rules of Evidence and relied on self-serving testimony.

ISSUE

Whether the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 29, 1985, is valid, considering the allegations of forgery and the propriety of its notarization.

RULING

The Supreme Court GRANTED the petition, REVERSED and SET ASIDE the Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution, and REINSTATED the RTC Decision. The Court held the 1985 deed of sale was not a valid public document because it was improperly notarized. For a notarized document to be considered a public document and enjoy the presumption of due execution and authenticity, the parties must have personally appeared before the notary public to acknowledge the document. Respondent Oscar Papa admitted he did not recall signing the deed in front of the notary public, Atty. William Gumtang, who was not presented as a witness. This failure to prove due notarization stripped the deed of its public document status, making it a private document requiring proof of its due execution and authenticity. The Court found petitioners’ evidence, including the stark differences between their signatures on the 1980 deed of sale (with CSE) and the 1985 deed, sufficient to overcome any presumption of regularity. The circumstances, including Papa’s admissions about the signing process, the lack of personal meeting between the parties, and the failure to pay realty taxes or take possession, indicated the deed was invalid and respondents were not buyers in good faith. The action for declaration of nullity of a void contract does not prescribe.