No proof of possession attached – relied on the alleged nullity of deed of sale

Relied on validity of deed of sale – not within the jurisdiction of DAR to declare as void
Laches cannot attach in recovery of possession and declaration of void contract or title
Focus on evidence for disqualification
Tax declaration on name of artemio gupeteo – proof of possession in concept of an owner
Certification issued by government agency as prima facie evidence
Continued to cultivate the area since 1999 certified and proven
Severino never occupied, lived, possessed the subject land. no pieces of evidence were submitted to prove
their claim.
Heirs never lived or occupied the subject land.

And substantial evidence has been defined to be such relevant

evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to
support a conclusion and its absence is not shown by stressing
that there is contrary evidence on record, direct or
circumstantial, and where the findings of fact of the agrarian
court are supported by substantial evidence, such findings are
conclusive and binding on the appellate court (Bagsican vs. Court
of Appeals, 141 SCRA 226 (1986); Heirs of E.B. Roxas, Inc. vs.
Tolentino, 167 SCRA 334 (1988). In such cases, the appellate
court cannot make its own findings of fact and substitute and
same in lieu of the findings of fact of the agrarian court.

ubstantial evidence as defined in the case of Government

Service Insurance System vs. Court of Appeals, 296 SCRA 514 ,
is that:
"Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate
to support a conclusion. The statute provides that "the rules of
evidence prevailing in courts of law and equity shall not be
controlling.' The obvious purpose of this and similar provisions is
to free administrative boards from the compulsion of technical
rules so that mere admission of matter which would be deemed
incompetent in judicial proceedings would not invalidate the
administrative order."
Nullification of Deed of Sale in Philippine
Law
Topic: Nullification of Deed of Sale
The nullification of a deed of sale in Philippine law entails the legal annulment or making
void of a sale transaction due to specific legal deficiencies. This includes situations
where the transaction was conducted under fraudulent circumstances, lacked proper
consent, involved illegal terms, or was initiated by parties lacking the legal capacity to
enter into contracts. The primary goal of nullification is to revert the parties to their
original state, as though the sale had never taken place.

Applicable Laws: The Civil Code of the Philippines is the primary legal framework
governing contracts, including sales, encapsulating provisions from Articles 1315 to
1422. Articles 1409, 1338, and 1344 detail the conditions under which a deed of sale
may be considered null due to illegality, fraud, and incapacity, respectively. The Family
Code also outlines restrictions on selling property deemed conjugal or as a family home
(Articles 96, 124, 147, 148).

GROUNDS FOR NULLIFICATION

Lack of Consent: A valid contract of sale necessitates the mutual consent of the
involved parties. This consent must be freely given, devoid of coercion, undue influence,
or deceit. Transactions entered without genuine consent from one party are considered
voidable and subject to annulment.

Fraud: Employing deceit to manipulate another party into entering a sale constitutes
fraud, a significant ground for nullification. This necessitates demonstrating that deceit
was intended to mislead one party about significant facts.

Illegality: Transactions involving illegal objects or purposes, as defined by Philippine

law or public policy, render a deed of sale void. This includes sales of properties not
legally owned or sales designed to bypass legal restrictions.

Incapacity: Legal capacity is essential for all parties in a sale contract. Transactions
involving minors, mentally incapacitated individuals, or those legally deprived of certain
rights are generally unenforceable, not merely voidable. This distinction emphasizes the
protection of parties who are incapable of fully understanding or committing to the
contractual obligations.

REMEDIES AND PROCEDURES

Filing a Petition: Initiating the nullification process requires submitting a petition to a

competent court, detailing the nullification grounds and supported by evidence.
Notice and Hearing: The court will schedule a hearing, notifying all involved parties to
present their cases and evidence.

Judgment: After deliberation, the court will issue a judgment. If the sale is deemed
void, the property reverts to its original owner, and the sale is treated as if it never
happened.

Restitution: The principle of restitution mandates the return of received benefits to the
other party. In annulled sales, this typically involves returning the property to the seller
and refunding the purchase price to the buyer.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

Can a deed of sale be nullified after a long period?

Yes, deeds of sale can be nullified years after the transaction if the grounds for
nullification involve enduring issues like fraud, illegality, or incapacity. Nonetheless,
legal actions for nullification may be subject to statutory limitations.

Is a court order necessary to nullify a deed of sale?

Yes, nullifying a deed of sale requires a judicial decree. Parties cannot independently
declare a transaction null; it must be adjudicated by a court.

What happens to property improvements post-sale?

Courts address improvements on the property considering the principle of unjust
enrichment, potentially entitling the improver to compensation, contingent on the
nullification's circumstances.

Can a deceased's heirs contest a deed of sale?

Heirs have the right to challenge a deed of sale if they can demonstrate that the sale
was fraudulent, illegal, or lacked proper authority. Legal challenges must adhere to
prescribed timelines.

However, and precisely to the point, matters relating to the validity of the 1991 DOAS cannot be
resolved without presentation of evidence. Any finding to be made by the Court here would amount
to a prejudgment of the merits of the Complaint without trial, and would constitute a violation of
Petitioners' right to due process. To treat the 1991 DOAS as void without the benefit of trial will
contradict the hypothetical admissions made by MLI when it filed its Motion for Preliminary Hearing.

Forgery must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence and the burden of proof lies on
the party alleging forgery. The best evidence of a forged signature in an instrument is the instrument
itself reflecting the alleged forged signature. The fact of forgery can only be established by a
comparison between the alleged forged signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the
person whose signature is theorized upon to have been forged.20 Pertinently, Sec. 22, Rule 132 of
the Rules of Court provides:
SEC. 22. How genuineness of handwriting proved. - The handwriting of a person may be proved by
any witness who believes it to be the handwriting of such person because he has seen the person
write, or has seen writing purporting to be his upon which the witness has acted or been charged,
and has thus acquired knowledge of the handwriting of such person. Evidence respecting the
handwriting may also be given by a comparison, made by the witness or the court, with writings
admitted or treated as genuine by the party against whom the evidence is offered, or proved to be
genuine to the satisfaction of the judge.

s a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive and convincing evidence
and the burden of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. 10

Was the evidence presented by private respondent against the Deed of Absolute Sale clear, convincing
and more than merely preponderant to overcome both the presumption of regularity attached to
public documents and to meet the stringent requirements to prove forgery?

Far from being clear and convincing, all private respondent had to offer by way of evidence was her
mere denial that she had signed the same. Such mere denial will not suffice to overcome the positive
value of the subject Deed, a notarized document. Indeed, even in cases where the alleged forged
signature was compared to samples of genuine signatures to show its variance therefrom, this Court
still found such evidence insufficient, to wit —

"Petitioner contends that his signature on the power of attorney was falsified. He also alleges that the
same was not duly notarized for as testified by Atty. Tubig himself, he did not sign thereon nor was it
ever recorded in his notarial register. To bolster his argument, petitioner had presented checks,
marriage certificate and his residence certificate to prove his alleged genuine signature which when
compared to the signature in the power of attorney, showed some difference.

We found, however, that the basis presented by the petitioner was inadequate to sustain his allegation
of forgery. Mere variance of the signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof that the same
were forged. Forgery cannot be presumed (Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, G.R. 107967, March
1, 1994). Petitioner, however, failed to prove his allegation and simply relied on the apparent
difference of the signatures. His denial had not established that the signature on the power of attorney
was not his.

x x x

Documents acknowledged before a notary public have the evidentiary weight with respect to their due
execution. The questioned power of attorney and deed of sale, were notarized and therefore,
presumed to be valid and duly executed. Atty. Tubig denied having notarized the said documents and
alleged that his signature has also been falsified. He presented samples of his signature to prove his
contention. Forgery should be proved by clear and convincing evidence and whoever alleges it has the
burden of proving the same. Just like the petitioner, witness Atty. Tubig merely pointed out that his
signature was different from that in the power of attorney and deed of sale. There had never been an
accurate examination of the signature, even that of the petitioner. To determine forgery, it was held in
Cesar v. Sandiganbayan (G.R. Nos. 54719-50, 17 January 1985, quoting Osborn, The Problem of
Proof) that:
jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

MANILA – The Supreme Court (SC) has ruled that irregularities in the notarization of
public documents may put to question the genuineness and presumption of regularity
of transactions, as it sternly warned a notary public who failed to register a deed of sale
of real property he notarized which later became the subject of adverse claims.
In a 19-page decision written by Associate Justice Samuel Gaerlan and recently posted
online by the high court, the court’s First Division said regardless of the reason, the
failure of the notary public to register the subject deed of sale “casts doubt on the
authenticity” of a document signed by a notary public.

The case involved the title of over 171,900 square meters of agricultural land at Barrio
Concordia, Alitagtag, Batangas sold by Francisco P. Madlangbayan who had been given
a special power of attorney (SPA) by the lots’ eight registered owners from the de Joya,
Castillo, and Cordero families.

The SPA granted to Madlangbayan was revoked by the owners after a conflict over the
PHP17-million purchase price after Madlangbayan claimed PHP13.6 million in
commissions. A demand for the return of the owners’ certificate of title in June 1996
went unheeded.

In response to a complaint filed on July 14, 1997, Madlangbayan claimed he had already
sold the property for PHP10 million on April 8, 1996 before his authority was revoked.
The buyers, Rolando and Maria Florita Dalida, said the payment was deposited in
Madlangbayan’s account in the Rural Bank of Bauan. The Dalida couple then sold the
property to another group led by Renato Go, who claimed that the deed of sale to them
is valid.

The SC, in its ruling, reinstated the original ruling of the Batangas City Regional Trial
Court Branch 84 and said because there is no valid transfer of the properties, the
petitioners remained to be the owners adding that “buyers in a simulated sale acquired
no right of ownership”.

The court noted that while the deed of sale dated April 8, 1996 stated that it was
notarized by lawyer Henry Adasa, the same did not appear in his notarial registry -- a
record of the notary public’s official acts for that year.

The court explained that documents recorded in a notary public’s notarial registry are
considered public documents and a document which does not appear in the notarial
records or without a copy of it “suggests that the document was not really notarized”.

The SC said without registration, a document or instrument signed by a notary public

"cannot be treated as duly notarized”.

“It cannot be treated as a public document and as such is not entitled to the
presumption of regularity,” the court said.
It added that irregular notarization reduces the "evidentiary value" of a document from
public to a private document which requires "proof of its due execution and authenticity
to be admissible as evidence.”

The court also sternly warned Adasa that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the
future "shall be dealt with more severely”. (PNA

Generally, a notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its
due execution, and documents acknowledged before a notary public have in their favor the
presumption of regularity which may only be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. However,
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 document. 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.

xxxx

In the instant ease, the private document Deed of Donation is binding between the parties (Ramiro
and Amada, and defendants) and the plaintiffs herein, the alleged heirs of Ramiro and Amada. This
private document was duly authenticated when notary public Atty. Dagooc and respondent Eva
Patenia Maghuyop testified that they were present at the time the Deed of Donation was executed.
Thus, it serves as competent proof of the said document's authenticity and due execution.