GR L 17970; (June, 1966) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17970 June 30, 1966
MARIA MAHILUM, SALVADOR MAHILUM, ANGEL MAHILUM, EMILIO OGDIMAN, VICTORIO SALAZAR and TOMAS SALAZAR, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and GORGONIA FLORA DE SOTES, respondents.
FACTS
Pedro Mahilum was the registered owner of Lot No. 2195. Upon his death in 1934, he was succeeded by his six children: Tomas, Juan, Clemente, Antonia, Juliana, and Tomasa. On May 13, 1935, these six children executed a “deed of definite sale” in favor of Gorgonia Flora de Sotes, conveying a portion of 150,333 square meters of the lot for P2,000. The deed was acknowledged before Notary Public Nicolas D. Destua. Gorgonia Flora declared the property for taxation and paid taxes starting in 1936. The Mahilum heirs later claimed they never sold the land and that their signatures/thumbmarks on the deed were fraudulent. The trial court dismissed both the complaint for partition and damages filed by Gorgonia and the counterclaim by the Mahilums. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering partition and declaring Gorgonia the rightful owner of the 150,333-square-meter portion. The Mahilums appealed to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
1. Whether the deed of sale (Exhibit “D”) is inadmissible in evidence for lack of documentary stamps.
2. Whether the deed of sale is invalid for conveying registered land because it is not signed by two disinterested witnesses.
3. Whether the Original Certificate of Title of the petitioners is conclusive evidence of ownership, rendering the unregistered deed ineffective.
RULING
1. No, the deed of sale is admissible. Exhibit “D” is a duplicate original copy. Documentary stamps are required on the original or first copy, not on duplicates. There is a presumption that official duty was regularly performed and that the original copy had the required stamps, absent proof to the contrary.
2. No, the deed is valid. The requirement of two witnesses under Act No. 496 was complied with. The notary public, Nicolas D. Destua, and his wife signed as witnesses, and there is no legal prohibition against a notary public acting as a witness.
3. No, the original certificate of title, while conclusive as to Pedro Mahilum’s ownership, does not invalidate the subsequent sale by his heirs. The deed of sale, though unregistered since 1935, is effective between the parties (the heirs and Gorgonia) and their privies. Gorgonia was delivered possession, and no superior rights of third parties have intervened. The title’s conclusiveness does not bar the enforcement of the valid contract of sale executed by the heirs.
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals.