GR 205912; (October, 2017) (Digest)
G.R. No. 205912 October 18, 2017
ROGELIA R. GATAN and THE HEIRS OF BERNARDINO GATAN, namely: RIZALINO GATAN AND FERDINAND GATAN, Petitioners vs. JESUSA VINARAO, and SPOUSES MILDRED CABAUATAN and NOMAR CABAUATAN, Respondents
FACTS
Petitioners, the widow and heirs of Bernardino Gatan, sought the nullification of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 30, 1989, which conveyed a 245-square-meter portion of their property to respondents Jesusa Vinarao and her late husband. Petitioners alleged the deed was void, contending Bernardino’s signature was forged as he was illiterate and that it lacked Rogelia’s marital consent, as it was signed by an “Aurelia Ramos Gatan.” They claimed respondents only sought temporary permission to build a house in 2002 and that they discovered the deed only in 2006, prompting demands to vacate.
Respondents asserted the sale’s validity, presenting the notarized deed and evidence of subsequent tax declarations and payments in their names since 1990. They claimed Bernardino could write his name and that “Aurelia Ramos Gatan” was Rogelia’s real name. They noted a prior criminal complaint for falsification filed by petitioners had been dismissed for lack of probable cause. The Regional Trial Court dismissed petitioners’ complaint, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial court’s decision upholding the validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. The core issue involved a question of fact—the authenticity of Bernardino’s signature and the identity of the signatory “Aurelia”—which is generally beyond the scope of a Rule 45 petition limited to questions of law. The Court found no compelling reason to deviate from this rule, as the factual findings of the lower courts were supported by evidence and were not shown to be grounded on speculation or manifestly erroneous.
The legal logic centered on the presumption of regularity accorded to notarized documents like the Deed of Absolute Sale. This presumption stands as clear and convincing evidence is required to overcome it. Petitioners failed to meet this burden. The trial court, having observed the witnesses’ demeanor, found the testimony of the notary public and other witnesses credible in establishing the deed’s due execution. The consistent tax payments by respondents for over 15 years further corroborated the sale’s validity and constituted an act of ownership inconsistent with petitioners’ claim of a mere temporary permit. The dismissal of the related criminal case for lack of probable cause also weakened petitioners’ forgery claim. Consequently, the deed was upheld as a valid conveyance.