Tamani v. Salvador (G.R. No. 171497; April 4, 2011)
CASE DIGEST: MARIA LOURDES TAMANI, CONCEPCION TAMANI, ESTRELLA TAMANI, TERESITA TAMANI, AZUCENA SOLEDAD, DOLORES GUERRERO, CRISTINA TUGADE DAMIETA MANSAANG, MANUEL TAMANI, VALERIANA CASTRO, AURORA SANTIAGO and ROSARIO CASTILLO, Petitioners, vs. ROMAN SALVADOR and FILOMENA BRAVO, Respondents. (G.R. No. 171497; April 4, 2011).
FACTS: The respondent spouses filed a Complaint for quieting of title was against the petitioners, who were legal heirs of the spouses Demetrio Tamani and Josefa Caddauan, over a 431 sq. m. parcel of land located at Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.
Respondents and the Spouses Tamani are co-owners of an undivided parcel of land with an area of 776 sq. m. Based on the TCT, respondents own 345 sq. m. of the property whereas the Spouses Tamani own the remaining 431 sq. m. (disputed property). The spouses Tamani allegedly sold the disputed property to Milagros Cruz (Cruz) as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale for a consideration of Php 2,500.00. Subsequently, Cruz sold the disputed property to respondents through a Deed of Absolute Sale for the same consideration. Thus, the respondents acquired ownership over the whole area of 776 sq. m.
In the meantime, Benigno Magpale (Magpale) and Leoncia Velasco (Velasco) filed a complaint for specific performance against the Spouses Tamani in the RTC compelling the Spouses Tamani to execute a deed of sale over a residential land which was alledgedly sold to them without documentation. Since the dismissal of their complaint, the respondents have remained in possession over the disputed property.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners declaring the Deed of Sale null and void and directing the RD to cancel the TCT under the name of the respondents. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the lower court declaring the said documents valid.
ISSUE: Was the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void?
HELD: Based on the foregoing, as aptly argued by petitioners, the following circumstances would show that the alleged deed of sale was spurious: First, Cruz never took action to possess the property from 1959 to 1980; Second, even after the supposed sale, Tamani was continuously declaring the land in his name for taxation purposes and paid the taxes due thereon; any reasonable person who had sold his property would not undertake the unnecessary burden of continuing to pay real property taxes on the same; Last, the land was allegedly sold to Cruz for P2,500.00 in 1959 and yet twenty-one years (21) after, Cruz sold the land to respondents for the same amount of P2,500.00. One who alleges forgery has the burden of establishing his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Based on the preceding discussion, this Court finds that petitioners have satisfactorily discharged such burden.The deed of sale may have been notarized and it is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution ,and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption. Nonetheless, given the highly questionable circumstances present in the case at bar such prima facie presumption was properly put in dispute.
Given the manner by which petitioners presented and defended their case, the Court is of the opinion that respondents should have presented the individual who acted as witness to the deed of sale and the notary public who acknowledged the instrument to shed light on the circumstances of the same. However, when Cruz was asked if she remembered the person who acted as a witness to the deed of sale, Cruz peculiarly said that she did not know or remember who the individual was.
***
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays the full and fair price for it at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property. He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith. It is undisputed that respondents were neighbors of petitioners and even co-owners of land. Respondents have also dealt with the Tamanis in the past, having mortgaged their property together when respondents availed of a loan from the Government Service Insurance System. Thus, it is inconceivable for respondents not to know that petitioners had been exercising open, continuous and notorious possession over the property. Like Cruz, respondents should have ascertained the land’s identity and character given that houses were standing on the land in dispute and petitioners had been leasing the same to tenants. GRANTED.
FACTS: The respondent spouses filed a Complaint for quieting of title was against the petitioners, who were legal heirs of the spouses Demetrio Tamani and Josefa Caddauan, over a 431 sq. m. parcel of land located at Solano, Nueva Vizcaya.
Respondents and the Spouses Tamani are co-owners of an undivided parcel of land with an area of 776 sq. m. Based on the TCT, respondents own 345 sq. m. of the property whereas the Spouses Tamani own the remaining 431 sq. m. (disputed property). The spouses Tamani allegedly sold the disputed property to Milagros Cruz (Cruz) as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale for a consideration of Php 2,500.00. Subsequently, Cruz sold the disputed property to respondents through a Deed of Absolute Sale for the same consideration. Thus, the respondents acquired ownership over the whole area of 776 sq. m.
In the meantime, Benigno Magpale (Magpale) and Leoncia Velasco (Velasco) filed a complaint for specific performance against the Spouses Tamani in the RTC compelling the Spouses Tamani to execute a deed of sale over a residential land which was alledgedly sold to them without documentation. Since the dismissal of their complaint, the respondents have remained in possession over the disputed property.
The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners declaring the Deed of Sale null and void and directing the RD to cancel the TCT under the name of the respondents. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of the lower court declaring the said documents valid.
ISSUE: Was the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void?
HELD: Based on the foregoing, as aptly argued by petitioners, the following circumstances would show that the alleged deed of sale was spurious: First, Cruz never took action to possess the property from 1959 to 1980; Second, even after the supposed sale, Tamani was continuously declaring the land in his name for taxation purposes and paid the taxes due thereon; any reasonable person who had sold his property would not undertake the unnecessary burden of continuing to pay real property taxes on the same; Last, the land was allegedly sold to Cruz for P2,500.00 in 1959 and yet twenty-one years (21) after, Cruz sold the land to respondents for the same amount of P2,500.00. One who alleges forgery has the burden of establishing his case by a preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered in opposition to it. Based on the preceding discussion, this Court finds that petitioners have satisfactorily discharged such burden.The deed of sale may have been notarized and it is true that a notarial document is considered evidence of the facts expressed therein. A notarized document enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and due execution ,and only clear and convincing evidence will overcome such legal presumption. Nonetheless, given the highly questionable circumstances present in the case at bar such prima facie presumption was properly put in dispute.
Given the manner by which petitioners presented and defended their case, the Court is of the opinion that respondents should have presented the individual who acted as witness to the deed of sale and the notary public who acknowledged the instrument to shed light on the circumstances of the same. However, when Cruz was asked if she remembered the person who acted as a witness to the deed of sale, Cruz peculiarly said that she did not know or remember who the individual was.
***
A purchaser in good faith is one who buys the property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in, such property, and pays the full and fair price for it at the time of such purchase or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the belief that the person from whom he receives the thing was the owner and could convey title to the property. He cannot close his eyes to facts that should put a reasonable man on his guard and still claim he acted in good faith. It is undisputed that respondents were neighbors of petitioners and even co-owners of land. Respondents have also dealt with the Tamanis in the past, having mortgaged their property together when respondents availed of a loan from the Government Service Insurance System. Thus, it is inconceivable for respondents not to know that petitioners had been exercising open, continuous and notorious possession over the property. Like Cruz, respondents should have ascertained the land’s identity and character given that houses were standing on the land in dispute and petitioners had been leasing the same to tenants. GRANTED.