FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 196520. June 3, 2019.]
JOSIE S. ARANETA, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT OF RITA EUSTAQUIO, ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF DECEASED THOMAS * EUSTAQUIO, petitioners, vs.SPOUSES ROLANDO AND MAXIMINA FERRER AND TRANQUILINA TUANO, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJune 3, 2019which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 196520 (Josie S. Araneta, Attorney-in-fact of Rita Eustaquio, Administratrix of the Estate of Deceased Thomas Eustaquio v. Spouses Rolando and Maximina Ferrer and Tranquilina Tuano)
This is an appeal on certiorari seeking to reverse the December 20, 2010 Decision 1 and the April 12, 2011 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 84740. The CA reversed and set aside the October 15, 2004 Decision 3 of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 222 (RTC) in Civil Case No. Q95-22772, an action for nullity of sale and reconveyance with damages.
Antecedents
Josie S. Araneta (Josie), attorney-in-fact of Thomas Eustaquio's (Thomas) surviving wife, testified that she came to the Philippines in June 1994. She was a permanent resident of the United States of America (U.S.A.) at that time. She was tasked by Thomas to collect rentals from Tranquilina Tuano (Lina) who was leasing Thomas' house and lot (the property) located at No. 8, Princeton Street, Cubao, Quezon City. It was covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. RT-63639 (33050) in the Registry of Deeds of Quezon City and registered under the name of Thomas. Lina leased the subject property on a monthly basis. Her last payment was made in July 1992 for the month of June 1992, in the amount of P3,000.00. 4
Josie went to Lina to collect her arrears but the latter refused to pay her on the assertion that the property was already owned by Spouses Rolando and Maximina Ferrer (Spouses Ferrer). Lina showed her a copy of the Deed of Sale, dated December 29, 1992, with the supposed thumbmark of Thomas purportedly transferring the property to Spouses Ferrer for the consideration of P600,000.00. 5
Josie went to the Register of Deeds to verify the alleged transfer. She discovered that the property was already covered by TCT No. 75780 in the name of Spouses Ferrer. She noticed that the transfer was made even without the payment of documentary stamp tax, capital gains tax, and transfer tax. Consequently, the Register of Deeds filed a petition for the cancellation of said title and the restoration of Thomas' title. Said petition, however, was dismissed on the ground that the requisite taxes had already been paid by Spouses Ferrer. In the meantime, an Affidavit of Adverse Claim was duly annotated in the title of Spouses Ferrer. 6
When Thomas learned about the transfer, he denied that he had sold the property to anyone because it was impossible for him to do so as he was in the U.S.A. at the time of the alleged sale. Since Thomas was very sick, he gave Josie the power to file the complaint for declaration of nullity of sale or annulment of sale and reconveyance with damages. 7
During the trial, Rita Eustaquio (Rita), Thomas' wife, also testified that the last time her late husband was in the Philippines was in April 1992. He would come home every six (6) months to check on his properties and would stay at his brother's house. On September 22 to October 10, 1992, Thomas was confined at the University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Hospital (now University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center) for a serious ailment. Rita flew to the Philippines with her two children. They returned to the U.S.A. on October 12, 1992, along with Thomas, after the latter was permitted by his doctor to fly back to the U.S.A. While he was confined, Rita stayed with him from the time she arrived in the Philippines until he was discharged. She would only leave the hospital late in the evening when Benigno, Thomas' brother, would take her place. Rita claimed that her husband did not mention anything about the property during his confinement. She alleged that there were many offers to purchase the property but her husband had refused all of them. 8
Benigno, on the other hand, testified that he witnessed the consummation of the sale between Thomas and Spouses Ferrer. He mentioned that prior to the sale, Thomas had told him of his intent to sell the property for P1,500,000.00. It was during Thomas' confinement when the sale of the property took place. Benigno admitted that he advised Thomas to affix his thumbmark on the deed of sale instead of signing it because Thomas was still very weak and unstable at that time. 9 The immediate family of Thomas were also not present during that time.
Lina testified that the property was first offered to her but she refused to buy it. She recalled that Benigno and his wife were present when Spouses Ferrer signed the deed of sale in the hospital where Thomas was confined. She mentioned that if she remembered it correctly, it was on October 2, 1992 when the transaction took place. Lina claimed that part of the purchase price in the amount of P900,000.00 was already given to Thomas. The remaining P600,000.00, by way of a manager's check, was handed Thomas in the hospital after the execution of the deed of sale. Lina, however, admitted that no receipt was given by Thomas because she was embarrassed to ask for it. 10
Rolando, on his part, testified that Thomas was a family friend and the latter would borrow money from him from time to time. He was able to give P900,000.00 to Thomas through Lina. Thomas then offered to sell the property to him but pleaded for another P600,000.00 to settle it. Rolando accepted the said offer and prepared a check for the additional amount. He claimed that he was not present during the signing of the alleged deed. Thomas and Maximina had already signed the deed when it was delivered to him for his signature. 11
The RTC Ruling
In its October 15, 2004 Decision, the RTC ruled in favor of petitioner and declared the deed of sale as null and void. 12 The RTC observed that there were inconsistencies in the testimonies of respondents. Both Lina and Benigno were positive that Rolando was present during the alleged signing of the deed but the latter maintained that he was not. The RTC further held that the transfer was fraudulent; and thus, Thomas was still the rightful owner of the subject property. 13
Aggrieved, respondents appealed to the CA.
The CA Ruling
In its December 20, 2010 Decision, 14 the CA reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC. The CA explained that petitioner failed to prove that the thumbmark of Thomas in the deed of sale was forged or obtained through force, intimidation or undue influence. As such, the deed remained valid as respondents duly proved its existence and validity. Moreover, it held that the defect and irregularity in the notarization of the deed did not affect the validity of the deed of sale. Hence, there was a valid contract of sale between Thomas and Spouses Ferrer.
Petitioner's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA in its April 12, 2011 Resolution. 15
Hence, this petition.
Issue
WHETHER OR NOT THE CA ERRED IN RULING THAT ALL THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A SALE ARE PRESENT IN THE INSTANT CASE.
Petitioner argues that respondents have the burden to prove that the deed was valid, which they failed to do. They were not able to prove that the consent of Thomas was freely given or that it was given at all, making the contract of sale null and void. Moreover, it was also not proven that there was a consideration for the alleged sale of the property.
In their Comment, 16 respondents claim that they were able to prove all the elements of a contract of sale and that it was petitioner who failed to prove the allegation that the thumbmark of Thomas was forged by respondents. It was also proven by the witnesses that Thomas received the payments for the purchase of the disputed property.
In her Reply, 17 petitioner merely reiterated her arguments in the instant petition.
The Court's Ruling
At the outset, it must be pointed out that the arguments raised by petitioner are a mere rehash of what was already resolved and passed upon by the appellate court.
As to the authenticity of the deed of sale, the Court adheres to the CA's appreciation of evidence that respondents have substantially proven that Thomas indeed affixed his thumbmark on the deed of sale of the property in favor of Spouses Ferrer. Benigno's categorical statement in the trial court that he himself saw Thomas affix his thumbmark on the deed of sale lends credence. This was corroborated by another witness, Lina, who was present during that time. Although petitioner raised inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, it cannot be denied that respondents had shown by competent proof that a deed of sale was executed by the parties.
A contract, as defined in the Civil Code, is a meeting of minds, with respect to the other, to give something or to render some service. 18 Article 1318 of the said Code provides:
Art. 1318. There is no contract unless the following requisites concur:
(1) Consent of the contracting parties;
(2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract;
(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.
Accordingly, for a contract to be valid, it must have the above three essential elements. 19 Consent is essential to the existence of a contract and where it is wanting, the contract is non-existent. 20 In a contract of sale, its perfection is consummated at the moment there is a meeting of minds upon the thing or the object of the contract and upon the price. 21 Consent is manifested by the meeting of the offer and the acceptance of the thing and the cause. 22
In this case, respondents were able to prove that all the requisites for a valid contract of sale are present. For a valuable consideration of P1,500,000.00, Thomas agreed to sell and actually conveyed the subject property to Spouses Ferrer. As proof of payment of the purchase price, respondents testified that Thomas received P900,000.00 in cash from Spouses Ferrer and that the balance of P600,000.00 was paid by way of a Banco De Oro manager's check. 23 That the notarization of the deed of sale was defective does not render the agreement null and void and without any effect. In Meneses v. Venturozo, 24 the Court explained the effects of a notarized and unnotarized document, to wit:
The necessity of a public document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code, is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability. As notarized documents, Deeds of Absolute Sale carry evidentiary weight conferred upon them with respect to their due execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as to falsity. The presumptions that attach to notarized documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond dispute that the notarization was regular. A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument. Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence. 25 (citations omitted)
Undeniably, a contract has been entered into by Thomas and Spouses Ferrer. Regardless of its form, it was valid, binding, and enforceable between the parties. 26 Thus, the burden is now shifted to petitioner to prove the contrary which she has dismally failed to do. As aptly stated by the CA:
x x x. A close reading of the impugned Deed of Absolute Sale reveals that Thomas Eustaquio, the purported seller, printed [sic] his thumbmark over his name and above the said thumbmark, is what appeared to be a shaking [sic] signature (See: Records, p. 18). As plaintiff-appellee was assailing the genuineness of the said document, it is incumbent upon plaintiff-appellee to make a clear-cut case that the subject document was indeed fake and spurious. Upon plaintiff-appellee rests the burden to prove that Thomas Eustaquio's thumbmark/signature was forged or obtained through force, intimidation or undue influence. Apparently, no sufficient proof was introduced by plaintiff-appellee that would buttress the argument that the thumbmark of Thomas Eustaquio in the deed of sale was not his or that his consent was vitiated when the parties entered into the contract of sale. Then again, forgery is never presumed (Kings Property Corporation v. Galido, 606 SCRA 137, 150 [2009]). An allegation of forgery must be proved by clear and convincing evidence, and whoever alleges it has the burden of proving the same (Pan Pacific Industrial Sales Company v. Capistrano, 482 SCRA 164, 174-175 [2006]). Plaintiff-appellee did not even bother to present an independent expert witness who would declare with authority and objectivity that the signature and thumbmark of Thomas Eustaquio were indeed forged. Neither did they allege that force, intimidation or undue influence attended the execution of the document. What plaintiff-appellee merely presented was the testimony of Thomas Eustaquio's wife who insisted that her husband cannot possibly sell the same as they have an agreement that they would preserve the property for the children and the testimony of the daughter, who maintained that her father never agreed to sell the property to anyone during his lifetime. Other than these testimonies, nothing was presented to strengthen their stand that the Deed of Sale was fake, bogus and spurious. 27 (emphasis supplied)
Verily, it is incumbent upon petitioner to prove the fact of forgery and the inability of Thomas to sell his property by reason of his condition. In this case, petitioner failed to present any other clear and convincing evidence to substantiate her bare allegations. As pointed out by the CA, petitioner only presented the testimonies of the wife and daughter of Thomas who both maintained that Thomas would never sell the subject property. Then again, bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, do not constitute proof and cannot be given weight. 28
Indeed, petitioner has failed to show compelling grounds for a reversal of the findings and conclusions of the CA. Thus, the instant petition must be denied.
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The December 20, 2010 Decision and the April 12, 2011 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 84740 are hereby AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED."Carandang, J.,on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
* Referred to as "Tomas" in other parts of the rollo.
1.Rollo, pp. 24-38; penned by Associate Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr. (now a Member of this Court), with Associate Justices Antonio L. Villamor and Danton Q. Bueser, concurring.
2.Id. at 40.
3.Id. at 41-47; penned by Judge Rogelio M. Pizarro.
4.Id. at 25-26.
5.Id. at 26.
6.Id. at 26-27.
7.Id. at 27.
8.Id. at 27-28.
9.Id. at 28-29.
10.Id. at 29-30.
11.Id. at 30.
12. Id. at 31.
13. Id. at 45-46.
14. Supra note 1.
15. Supra note 2.
16. Rollo, pp. 65-75.
17. Id. at 81-88.
18. CIVIL CODE, Art. 1318.
19. Heirs of Spouses Intac v. Court of Appeals, et al., 697 Phil. 373, 383 (2012).
20. Id.
21. Id.
22. Id.
23. Rollo, p. 51.
24. 675 Phil. 641 (2011).
25. Id. at 651-652.
26. Heirs of Biona v. Court of Appeals, et al., 414 Phil. 297, 308 (2001).
27. Rollo, pp. 35-36.
28. Gatan, et al. v. Vinarao, et al., G.R. No. 205912, October 18, 2017, 842 SCRA 602, 616, citing Domingo v. Robles, 493 Phil. 916, 921 (2005).