Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 158 views

    141 Navarro vs. Vailoces

    Uploaded by

    Robelle Rizon
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of deeds of sale that transferred property from R.F. Navarro & Co. to Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. and then to Luzon Surety Co., despite claims the deeds were fraudulent. While the notary was possibly not actually a notary, this did not invalidate the sales. Sale contracts are consensual and valid upon consent between parties alone. The deeds themselves showed receipt of payment, and forgery was not proven by clear evidence as required. The Court affirmed the transfers were legally binding sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    141 Navarro vs. Vailoces

    Uploaded by

    Robelle Rizon
    158 views1 page
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of deeds of sale that transferred property from R.F. Navarro & Co. to Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. and then to Luzon Surety Co., despite claims the deeds were fraudulent. While the notary was possibly not actually a notary, this did not invalidate the sales. Sale contracts are consensual and valid upon consent between parties alone. The deeds themselves showed receipt of payment, and forgery was not proven by clear evidence as required. The Court affirmed the transfers were legally binding sales.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of deeds of sale that transferred property from R.F. Navarro & Co. to Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. and then to Luzon Surety Co., despite claims the deeds were fraudulent. While the notary was possibly not actually a notary, this did not invalidate the sales. Sale contracts are consensual and valid upon consent between parties alone. The deeds themselves showed receipt of payment, and forgery was not proven by clear evidence as required. The Court affirmed the transfers were legally binding sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    158 views1 page

    141 Navarro vs. Vailoces

    Uploaded by

    Robelle Rizon
    The Supreme Court upheld the validity of deeds of sale that transferred property from R.F. Navarro & Co. to Eulogio Rodriguez Sr. and then to Luzon Surety Co., despite claims the deeds were fraudulent. While the notary was possibly not actually a notary, this did not invalidate the sales. Sale contracts are consensual and valid upon consent between parties alone. The deeds themselves showed receipt of payment, and forgery was not proven by clear evidence as required. The Court affirmed the transfers were legally binding sales.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 1

    141

    R. F. NAVARRO & CO., vs FORTUNATO A. VAILOCES


    G.R. No. 102313 July 12, 2001

    DOCTRINE: Deeds of Sale notarized by one who was not a real notary public, does not affect its validity.
    Said documents were merely converted into private documents, which remained to be valid contracts of
    sale between the parties, since sale is a consensual contract and is perfected by mere consent.

    FACTS: R.F. Navarro and Co., Inc., Laura Adea Navarro and the heirs of R.F. Navarro, Sr. instituted an
    action demanding for the return of the two (2) adjacent lots and building and improvement thereon
    situated at David Street, Binondo, Manila against the heirs of Eulogio Rodriquez, Sr. and Luzon Surety
    Co., Inc. Petitioner averred that the property was only entrusted to Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr. In 1970 and
    sometime after the death of Raymundo Navarro, petitioners discovered that Rodriguez was able to
    transfer the property in his name and thereafter to his family corporation the Luzon Surety Co., Inc.
    Petitioners claimed that the transfer of the property in the name of Rodriguez was fraudulent as the
    same was done without any consideration. Petitioners argue that that private respondents failed to
    produce any receipts for the payments issued by the seller and the deed of sale was not notarized by a
    notary public.
    Heirs of private respondents alleged that the transfer of the property was done by virtue of a
    Deed of Sale with Assumption of Mortgage executed by Raymundo F. Navarro, Sr. in his personal
    capacity and as president of R.F. Navarro & Co. in favor of Eulogio Rodriguez, Sr. Thereafter, Rodriguez
    executed a Deed of Assignment with Transfer of Mortgage in favor of Luzon Surety Co., Inc.
    The trial court found that no deed of sale with assumption of mortgage was executed by and
    between Navarro and Rodriguez and that the document presented to be said Deed did not merit
    recognition as the same was not corroborated by any other evidence.
    CA reversed the decision.

    ISSUE: Whether or not the sale of the property by RF Navarro in favour of Eulogio Rodriguez and
    subsequently the sale of Rodriguez in favour of his company, the Luzon Surety Co., Inc is fictitious, false,
    inexistent and null and void.

    RULING: Yes. The Deed of Sale with Assumption is the evidence itself of the receipt by R.F. Navarro of
    the consideration of said sale which states that “x x x, for and in consideration of the sum of FORTY
    THOUSAND PESOS (P40,000) Philippine currency. Further, the bare allegations that the signature in the
    deed was forged was spurious”. Forgery is not presumed; it must be proven by clear, positive and
    convincing evidence. Those who make the allegation of forgery have the burden of proving it since a
    mere allegation is not evidence. Further, petitioners' assertion that Rodolfo Medina, whose name
    appears on the questioned Deeds of Sale as the Notary Public was not a Notary Public in the City of
    Manila in 1941 deserves scant consideration. Even if it were true that the Deeds of Sale were notarized
    by one who was not a real notary public, the same does not affect the validity thereof. Said documents
    were merely converted into private documents, which remained to be valid contracts of sale between
    the parties, since sale is a consensual contract and is perfected by mere consent.

    You might also like