G.R. No. 246382 , July 14, 2021
Spouses Brenda Valenzuela and Anacleto Valenzuela, Petitioners, vs. Joselito, Margarito, Jr., and William all surnamed Capala; Maria Lily Capala Flores, Margarita Cabana Oliver and Susan Capala Mendoza, Respondents.

FACTS

This case originated from a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Ownership of a Parcel of Land with Damages filed by the respondents, heirs of the late Teodorica Capala, against the petitioners, Spouses Valenzuela. The subject property is Lot No. 995-B-2, covered by TCT No. 34880 registered in Teodorica’s name. After Teodorica’s death in 1982, the respondents discovered the petitioners occupying the property. The petitioners claimed ownership based on a Contract to Buy dated December 1, 1978, wherein Teodorica allegedly agreed to sell the lot to petitioner Brenda Valenzuela for P35,000.00, with P10,000.00 paid in advance and the balance payable upon delivery of the title. The respondents later amended their complaint to allege that Teodorica’s signature on the Contract to Buy was forged, seeking its declaration as null and void. During pre-trial, the parties admitted the existence and execution of the Contract to Buy. The respondents presented a document examiner who concluded the signature on the contract was forged. Petitioners claimed they had fully paid the purchase price through additional financial assistance to Teodorica, but their copy of the contract and receipts were lost in a flood. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) declared the Contract to Buy valid and binding, ordering the respondents to deliver the title and execute a deed of sale upon payment of the balance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, declaring the contract void due to forgery and ordering the petitioners to vacate and surrender possession.

ISSUE

Whether the Contract to Buy dated December 1, 1978 is valid and binding.

RULING

The Supreme Court REVERSED the Court of Appeals Decision and REINSTATED the Regional Trial Court Decision with MODIFICATION. The Court held that the Contract to Buy is valid and binding. The petitioners successfully overcame the presumption of forgery and proved the document’s due execution and authenticity through clear and convincing evidence. The Court found the testimony of the petitioners’ witness, the notarial secretary who prepared the contract, credible and corroborated by other evidence, including Teodorica’s delivery of possession of the property to the petitioners and her failure to question the contract during her lifetime. The Court ruled that the contract is a binding contract to sell, and the respondents, as heirs, are obligated to comply with its terms. The dispositive portion orders: (1) the declaration of the Contract to Buy as valid and binding; (2) the petitioners to pay the respondents the balance of P25,000.00; and (3) upon receipt, the respondents to execute a Final Deed of Sale in favor of the petitioners.