G.R. No. L-4408
AUSTIN CRAIG, as administrator of the Estate of RAMON VALENCIA, deceased, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SERVULO LEUTERIO, defendant-appellant.
July 30, 1908

FACTS: Austin Craig, as the judicial administrator of the estate of Ramon Valencia, deceased, filed an action against Servulo Leuterio in the Court of First Instance of Mindoro to recover possession of real and personal property allegedly belonging to Valencia’s estate. The plaintiff presented a deed dated November 25, 1893, conveying the land to Ramon Valencia, which was purportedly signed by Leuterio. The defendant, in his answer, denied under oath the execution of this instrument, challenging its authenticity. The lower court found in favor of the plaintiff regarding the real estate, concluding that the evidence preponderated in favor of the deed’s authenticity (the defendant brought and delivered it to Valencia).

On appeal, the defendant raised several arguments: (1) the deed, not being executed before a notary public, was not a public document and should have been rejected under Article 1280 of the Civil Code; (2) the inscription of the document in the registry of property in 1906 was invalid, making it inadmissible under Article 389 of the Mortgage Law; and (3) the plaintiff failed to present any evidence proving his appointment as the judicial administrator, despite having alleged it in the complaint and the defendant having sufficiently denied “every allegation of the complaint.”

ISSUE: 1. Whether a deed of conveyance is valid between the parties even if it does not comply with the requirements of Article 1280 of the Civil Code (i.e., not a public document).
2. Whether Article 389 of the Mortgage Law, concerning inscription and admissibility, applies between the parties to the instrument.
3. Whether the plaintiff, as administrator, sufficiently proved his appointment despite the defendant’s denial in the answer.

RULING: 1. Yes. The Court reiterated its consistent holding that a deed of conveyance is valid and good between the parties thereto, even if the requirements of Article 1280 of the Civil Code (requiring certain acts and contracts to be in a public document) are not complied with.

2. No. The Court held that Article 389 of the Mortgage Law is not applicable to a case arising between the parties to the instrument. A defendant, being a party to the instrument, is not considered a “third person” within the meaning of the said article.

3. No. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to present any evidence whatsoever regarding his appointment as the judicial administrator, despite having alleged it in the complaint and the defendant having denied “every allegation of the complaint.” This denial was sufficient to put the fact of appointment at issue, making it incumbent upon the plaintiff to offer proof. The Court rejected the argument that the defendant waived this proof by not demurring, explaining that a demurrer would have admitted the allegation.

For this error in failing to prove the administrator’s appointment, the judgment of the lower court was reversed. However, to serve the ends of justice, the case was remanded for a new trial, allowing the plaintiff to present evidence to remedy this specific defect in his proof. The new trial would not require retaking already presented evidence, but either party could present additional evidence.