G.R. No. 178645 ; January 30, 2009.
LINA PEÑALBER, Petitioner, vs. QUIRINO RAMOS, LETICIA PEÑALBER, and BARTEX INC., Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Lina Peñalber is the mother of respondent Leticia Peñalber and mother-in-law of respondent Quirino Ramos. Respondent Bartex, Inc. is a domestic corporation. The case involves two properties: the Ugac properties and the Bonifacio property.
Regarding the Ugac properties, petitioner alleged she was the owner of a parcel of land in Ugac Norte, Tuguegarao, covered by TCT No. T-43373 in her name. She discovered that in 1983, her title was cancelled and TCT No. T-58043 was issued in the names of respondent spouses Ramos based on a forged Deed of Donation purportedly executed by her. She confronted the spouses, who promised to pay her ₱1 Million. Later, she found out the spouses were selling the properties to respondent Bartex, Inc. Despite her warnings and an annotated Affidavit of Adverse Claim, the spouses executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on January 12, 1987, in favor of Bartex, Inc. for ₱150,000. Consequently, TCT No. T-68825 was issued in Bartex, Inc.’s name. Petitioner sought the declaration of nullity of the Deed of Donation, the subsequent titles, and the Deed of Absolute Sale, or alternatively, payment of the property’s value.
Respondent spouses Ramos claimed the Ugac properties were mortgaged to DBP by petitioner and others. When foreclosure was imminent, petitioner asked them to pay the debt in exchange for ownership, leading to a voluntary Deed of Donation dated April 27, 1983. They took possession and later sold the properties to Bartex, Inc., with petitioner’s knowledge. Respondent Bartex, Inc. claimed it was an innocent purchaser in good faith, having verified the title and found no encumbrances before the sale was consummated and petitioner’s adverse claim was annotated.
Regarding the Bonifacio property, petitioner claimed she operated a hardware store on a lot owned by Maria Mendoza. In 1984, when Mendoza offered to sell the lot, petitioner, lacking funds, entered into a verbal agreement with respondent spouses Ramos. The agreement stipulated that the spouses would buy the lot on her behalf using the store’s earnings, and the title would be placed in their names to secure a loan for business expansion. Accordingly, a contract of sale was executed with Mendoza, and TCT No. T-62769 was issued in the spouses’ names on October 24, 1984. Petitioner demanded reconveyance, claiming the spouses were mere trustees, but they refused.
Respondent spouses Ramos contended they were given full ownership of the hardware store, settled petitioner’s obligations, and bought the Bonifacio property with their own funds.
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioner on both causes of action, declaring her the owner of the Bonifacio property and ordering reconveyance, and declaring the Deed of Donation over the Ugac properties a forgery. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the RTC decision, specifically concerning the ownership and reconveyance of the Bonifacio property and the validity of the transfer of the Ugac properties.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision.
On the first cause of action (Ugac properties), the Supreme Court found that the RTC’s finding of forgery was based on a misappreciation of evidence. The RTC relied heavily on the testimony of a handwriting expert, but the Court noted that expert opinion is not binding. The Court of Appeals correctly considered other evidence, including petitioner’s admission that she sought help from the spouses to pay a DBP loan and the fact that she did not take immediate action after allegedly discovering the forgery in 1983, only filing the complaint in 1987. The Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that petitioner failed to prove forgery by clear and convincing evidence.
On the second cause of action (Bonifacio property), the Supreme Court held that petitioner failed to prove the existence of an express trust over the property. An express trust concerning real property cannot be proved by parol evidence under Article 1443 of the Civil Code. Petitioner’s claim relied solely on a verbal agreement, which is insufficient. Furthermore, the evidence presented, including receipts and disbursements, did not conclusively establish that the purchase money came from the hardware store’s funds. The Court found the testimony of respondent Quirino Ramos more credible, stating that they bought the property with their own money after settling petitioner’s debts upon taking over the store. Therefore, no trust was created, and respondent spouses Ramos were the rightful owners.
The Court also found that respondent Bartex, Inc. was a purchaser in good faith of the Ugac properties, having conducted the necessary verification before the sale.
The Supreme Court concluded that the Court of Appeals committed no reversible error in its findings and thus affirmed its decision.