GR 148635; (April, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 148635 ; April 1, 2003
MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE, et al., petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF CLARITA CAVILE, et al., respondents.
FACTS
The respondents, descendants from the first and second marriages of Bernardo Cavili, filed a complaint for partition against the petitioners, descendants from the third marriage, concerning six parcels of land acquired by Bernardo. They alleged co-ownership, claiming that upon Bernardo’s death, his son Castor (from the third marriage) administered the properties but that after Castor’s death, his children (the petitioners) appropriated the lands and refused to partition them. The trial court initially ordered partition after petitioners were declared in default.
However, upon a new trial granted to some defendants, the petitioners presented a notarized Deed of Partition dated April 5, 1937, purportedly executed by Bernardo’s heirs, including representatives from all three marital lines. The document allocated the properties, with portions being sold to Castor Cavili. Based on this deed, the trial court dismissed the complaint, finding the properties had already been partitioned.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court and nullifying the 1937 Deed of Partition, thereby reviving the action for partition.
RULING
The Supreme Court granted the petition and reinstated the trial court’s decision. The legal logic centers on the evidentiary weight of a notarized document. The 1937 Deed of Partition is a public document, acknowledged before a notary public. As such, it enjoys the presumption of regularity, authenticity, and due execution. It constitutes prima facie evidence of the facts stated therein, including the fact of partition among the heirs.
To overcome this presumption, the evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant. The Court of Appeals based its reversal on testimonies indicating that Simplicia Cavili (an heir from the first marriage) resided in Mindanao around 1937, suggesting she could not have participated. The Supreme Court found this insufficient. The witnesses admitted Simplicia was in good health and that travel from Mindanao to Negros Oriental was possible. This did not conclusively disprove her participation. Furthermore, the Court examined the document and found that what respondents claimed was an inkblot was, in fact, a discernible thumbmark. Therefore, respondents failed to present the requisite strong evidence to defeat the presumption of the deed’s validity. Consequently, the action for partition could not proceed as the properties were no longer held in co-ownership.