GR 142691; (August, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 142691 ; August 5, 2003
HEIRS OF AMADO CELESTIAL, as represented by his widow, FLORENCIA CELESTIAL, and GLORIA AGUI, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF EDITHA G. CELESTIAL, namely: EDWIN HERMINIGILDO CELESTIAL, JOCELYN CELESTIAL-TENORIO, FERDINAND CELESTIAL, FREDERICK CELESTIAL, and GEORGE CELESTIAL, represented by EDWIN CELESTIAL, and PRIMA B. CALINGACION, joined by her husband, CHUA CHIN, respondents.
FACTS
Amado Celestial, while single, applied for a Miscellaneous Sales Patent over a 466-square meter lot. He married Florencia in 1962, and they occupied the lot. In 1966, his patent was granted, and Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-27090 was issued in his name, albeit erroneously stating his civil status as “single.” On October 10, 1975, a Deed of Absolute Sale was executed, purportedly by Amado, conveying the lot to his sister-in-law, Editha G. Celestial, for P20,000. The deed described Amado as “single,” and Florencia did not sign it. OCT No. P-27090 was cancelled, and a transfer certificate of title was issued to Editha.
After Amado’s death in 1976, Editha sold the property to respondent Prima B. Calingacion in 1979. In 1990, Calingacion sought to eject the petitioners, who were occupying the lot. This prompted the petitioners to file a complaint for the judicial declaration of nullity of the 1975 Deed of Sale and all subsequent conveyances.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the Deed of Absolute Sale dated October 10, 1975, allegedly executed by Amado Celestial in favor of Editha Celestial, is valid and binding.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts’ decisions declaring the 1975 Deed of Sale null and void. The legal logic rests on the conclusive finding that Amado Celestial’s signature on the deed was a forgery. The Court gave utmost weight to the factual findings of the trial court, which were affirmed by the Court of Appeals, noting the stark dissimilarities between the contested signature and Amado’s genuine signatures on various documents presented in evidence. The notarization of the deed did not cure this fatal defect, as a notary public cannot authenticate a forged signature.
Furthermore, the property was conjugal, having been acquired during Amado’s marriage to Florencia. The sale without the wife’s consent violated the requirement of marital consent under the Civil Code. The deed’s description of Amado as “single” was a material falsehood that further vitiated the transaction. Consequently, the forged deed produced no legal effect. All subsequent transactions emanating from this void source, including the sales to respondent Calingacion, were likewise void. The Court ordered the reconveyance of the property to the heirs of Amado Celestial and upheld the award of damages. The ruling emphasizes that a forged deed is void ab initio and cannot convey any title.