G.R. No. 153743. March 18, 2005.
NORMA B. DOMINGO, Petitioner, vs. YOLANDA ROBLES; and MICHAEL MALABANAN ROBLES, MARICON MALABANAN ROBLES, MICHELLE MALABANAN ROBLES, All Minors Represented by Their Mother, YOLANDA ROBLES, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Norma B. Domingo and her husband were the registered owners of a lot in Marikina. She discontinued building a house on it and decided to sell the property, entrusting her friend, Flor Bacani, to act as her agent. She delivered the owner’s duplicate certificate of title and tax receipts to Bacani. Later, the title was reported lost and reconstituted. In 1994, Domingo discovered respondents, the Robles family, building a house on the lot. Verification showed the title had been cancelled and a new one issued to respondents based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991, purportedly signed by Domingo and her husband.
Domingo filed an action for nullity and reconveyance, claiming she never signed the deed, her husband was abroad at the time, and the sale was a forgery. Respondents countered they were buyers in good faith. They testified that Bacani, introduced as the owners’ agent, presented the deed already signed by the Domingos and the original owner’s duplicate title. They paid the full purchase price and later even contracted to resell the property.

ISSUE

Whether the respondents are purchasers in good faith entitled to a valid title, which hinges on the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale and the failure of the petitioner to prove forgery.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The legal logic centers on the burden of proof for forgery and the effects of a notarized instrument. Forgery is never presumed and must be proven by clear and convincing evidence by the party alleging it. The Deed of Absolute Sale was a notarized document, enjoying a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution. Petitioner Domingo failed to overcome this presumption. Her bare allegation of forgery and her claim that her husband was abroad were unsubstantiated by sufficient evidence.
Furthermore, the circumstances established that respondents purchased the property in good faith. The sale was facilitated by petitioner’s own agent, Bacani, who possessed the original owner’s duplicate certificate of title—a crucial document required for registration under the Torrens system. The title presented was clean, free from liens, and the land was unoccupied. A registered owner who places an executed document of transfer and the certificate of title in the hands of another represents to third parties that the holder is authorized to deal with the property. Consequently, respondents, having relied on these representations without knowledge of any defect, acquired a valid title. The discussion on good faith, while affirmed by the Court, was rendered secondary by the failure to substantiate the forgery claim.