G.R. No. 154609 , April 24, 2009
MA. CORAZON SAN JUAN, Petitioner, vs. CELESTE M. OFFRIL, Respondent.

FACTS

Celeste M. Offril was the registered owner of a 264-square meter lot in Makati City with a five-door apartment. Ma. Corazon San Juan was a tenant leasing the first door. In 1990, San Juan convinced Offril to deliver the title to the property so San Juan could use it to apply for a bank loan, the proceeds of which she would lend to Offril. Without Offril’s knowledge, two deeds of sale dated April 2, 1979 and June 14, 1979, allegedly between Offril and San Juan, were executed. Using these deeds, San Juan subdivided the lot into six sublots (Lots 20 A-F) and obtained separate titles. Offril claimed she never sold the property, received no consideration, and that the deeds were spurious with forged signatures. She learned of the cancellation of her title through her granddaughter. She filed a case praying for the deeds to be declared null and void and the new TCTs cancelled. San Juan maintained she acquired the property through valid sales, evidenced by the two deeds, and paid in cash and by checks encashed by Offril’s granddaughter as attorney-in-fact.
The trial court ruled that only Lots 20-A and 20-B were validly sold to San Juan, based on Offril’s lack of serious objection to the deed for Lot 20-A and a Deed of Partition submitted by Offril as rebuttal evidence, wherein the parties agreed Lots 20-A and 20-B were adjudicated to San Juan. It declared the two 1979 deeds of sale null and void for having no probative value, noting San Juan was not a lessee in 1979, the deeds were only registered in 1990, and San Juan had signed a lease contract in 1988. It ordered the cancellation of TCTs for Lots 20-C to 20-F and their reissuance to Offril, with both parties bearing their own damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision. San Juan filed a petition for review, challenging the factual findings and evidence appreciation.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision that there was no valid conveyance of all disputed properties from Offril to San Juan, thereby upholding the validity of TCTs for only Lots 20-A and 20-B and declaring the two 1979 deeds of sale null and void.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the Court of Appeals decision. The findings of fact by the Court of Appeals, which coincided with the trial court’s, are conclusive and binding. The presumption of regularity of the notarized deeds of sale was successfully rebutted by clear and convincing evidence of irregular circumstances, including the registration of the deeds only in 1990 despite their 1979 dates, the execution of a deed of sale dated April 2, 1990, and the execution of a Deed of Partition on May 2, 1990, despite San Juan’s claim of having acquired the entire property. Offril’s lone testimony was found credible by both lower courts, and the Court defers to such credibility determinations. San Juan’s claim that Offril suffered from Alzheimer’s disease was unsubstantiated and rejected. The Deed of Partition was a valid document indicating Offril sold only Lots 20-A and 20-B to San Juan. Therefore, the titles to Lots 20-C to 20-F were ordered cancelled and reissued to Offril, as there was no legal basis for their transfer to San Juan.