7/3/2015

G.R.No.191889

TodayisFriday,July03,2015

Search

RepublicofthePhilippines
SUPREMECOURT
Manila
THIRDDIVISION
G.R.No.191889January31,2011
SPS.IRENEOT.FERNANDO(substitutedbytheirheirs,RonaldoM.Fernando,ConcordiaFernando
Jayme,EsmeraldaM.Fernando,AntonetteM.FernandoRegondola,FerdinandM.Fernando,andJean
MarieFernandoCansanay),ANDMONSERRATMAGSALINFERNANDO,Petitioners,
vs.
MARCELINOT.FERNANDO,Respondent.
xx
MATIASI.FERNANDOandPANFILOM.FERNANDO,1intheircapacityasAdministrators[oftheestate]of
thelateJULIANAT.FERNANDO,RespondentsIntervenors.
DECISION
CARPIOMORALES,J.:,
ThespousesIreneo2T.FernandoandMonserratMagsalinFernando(petitioners)andIrineossistersJulianaT.
Fernando(Juliana)andCelerinaT.Fernando(Celerina)weretheregisteredcoownersinproratashares1/3
eachofthreeparcelsoflandlocatedinQuezonCity,designatedasLotNos.22,24and26,allofBlock329and
eachcontaininganareaof264squaremeters,moreorless.LotNo.22wascoveredbyTransferCertificateof
Title (TCT) No. RT7108 (141363),3 while Lot Nos. 24 and 26 were covered by TCT No. RT7109 (141364),4
bothissuedbytheRegisterofDeedsforQuezonCity.
MarcelinoT.Fernando(respondent)isthefullbloodbrotherofpetitionerIreneo,JulianaandCelerina.Celerina
died on April 28, 1988,5 single, without issue and without leaving any will, while Juliana passed away on
December1,1998,6likewisesingleandwithoutissue.Julianapurportedlyexecutedaholographicwill.
ItappearsthatonNovember3,1994,IreneoandJulianapresentedadocumentbeforetheRegisterofDeedsof
QuezonCity,denominatedasDeedofPartitionwithSale7(thedeed)datedOctober27,1994 and notarized on
even date by Notary Public Jesus M. Bautista, allegedly executed by petitioners, Juliana and Celerina wherein
they partitioned equally among themselves the aforementioned properties, thereby terminating their co
ownership.Underthedeed,LotNo.22wouldbeallottedtopetitionersLotNo.24toJulianaandLotNo.26to
Celerina.Stillinthesamedeed,JulianaagreedtosellLotNo.24topetitionersforthesumofP300,000.00.
TCTNos.120654and1206558coveringLotNos.22and24,respectively,werethereuponissuedonNovember
3,1994bytheRegisterofDeedsforQuezonCityinthenameofpetitioners,whileTCTNo.1206569wasissued
inthenameofCelerina.
On December 10, 1997, respondent caused the annotation of an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on petitioners and
Celerinas respective TCTs, claiming a right and interest over the properties, being one of the heirs of his late
sisterCelerina.
Respondent later filed on February 22, 2000 a complaint10 for annulment of the deed and the derivative TCTs
against petitioners and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon
City, docketed as Civil Case No. Q0040041, alleging that Celerinas signatures on the deed of partition was a
forgeryasshehadpassedawayonApril28,1988,beforethedeedwaspurportedlyexecutedin1994,andthat
thepurportedsalebyJulianaofhershareoverLotNo.24infavorofpetitionerswassimulatedandfictitiousdue
tolackofanyvalidconsideration,whichquestionedactshadeffectivelydeprivedhimofhisrightofpreemptionor
redemptionasCelerinasheirunderArticle1620oftheCivilCode[sic].
Respondent thus prayed for, inter alia, the cancellation and invalidation of the deed and the questioned TCTs,
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_191889_2011.html

1/6

7/3/2015

G.R.No.191889

andtherevivalofTCTNos.RT7108(141363)andRT7109(141364).
RespondentwaslaterappointedadministratoroftheintestateestateofCelerinaonDecember21,2001.11
On January 30, 2002, intervenors Matias Fernando and Procilo Fernando, who had earlier been appointed
special coadministrators12 of Julianas estate by the Quezon City RTC, Br. 95, filed their complaintin
intervention. Claiming an interest in the outcome of respondents complaint for annulment, they echoed
respondentsclaimthat,amongotherthings,thesaleofJulianassharetopetitionerswasfictitious,citinglackof
anyconsideration,andthusprayedforitsreconveyancetoJulianasestate.
Petitioners, denying respondents allegations by way of Answer Ad Cautelam13 dated May 11, 2002 with
CompulsoryCounterclaim,assertedinthemainthatthedeedwasactuallyexecutedsometimein1986duringthe
lifetime of Celerina and held in safekeeping by one of the parties but it was belatedly notarized on October 27,
1994beforeitwaspresentedtotheRegisterofDeedsandthatJulianaleftaholographicwillwhichisthesubject
ofprobateproceedings14beforeBr.95oftheQuezonCityRTC.
Atthewitnessstand,respondentconfirmedthematerialallegationsofhiscomplaint.15Petitioners,ontheother
hand, presented Monserrat Fernando (Monserrat), Ireneos widow, who declared that, among other things, she
was present when the deed was signed by Ireneo, Juliana and Celerina in 1986, and that by agreement, it
remainedinJulianassafekeepinguntilitwasnotarizedonOctober27,1994.16
On crossexamination, Monserrat maintained that the deed was signed in Julianas house, but she could not
recallthewitnessestothedocumentthatatthetimeJulianasignedthedeed,itwasstillundatedandtheentries
onpage3(thenotarialpage)were,withrespecttothedateandthecommunitytaxcertificatesoftheparties,still
blank and that she (Monserrat) appeared before the notary public but she could not remember if her husband
did.
Monserratfurthertestifiedthatshedidnotknowifthetypewriterusedinpreparingthedeedwasdifferentfrom
that used in typing the notarial date (October 27, 1994) as well as the figures "P300,000.00" and the words
"THREEHUNDREDTHOUSANDPESOS"representingtheconsiderationforthesaleofJulianassharetoIrineo
andthatIreneoissuedacheckpaymentdrawnonhisaccountinfavorofJuliana,albeitshe(Monserrat)couldnot
producethecheck.17
By Decision18 of April 13, 2005, Branch 220 of the Quezon City RTC dismissed both the complaint and the
complaintinintervention. And, on the Counterclaim, the trial court ordered respondent to pay petitioners moral
damagesandattorneysfees.
Insustainingthevalidityofthedeed,thetrialcourtratiocinatedthatsincethereappearedtobenodisputeasto
the genuineness of Celerina and Julianas signatures, the notarization of the document at a later date did not
renderitvoidorwithoutlegaleffect,butmerelyopenedthenotarypublictoprosecutionforpossibleviolationof
notariallaws.
The trial court added that both respondent and intervenors, not being compulsory heirs of either Celerina or
Juliana,werenotentitledtoanylegitimeandthuscouldnotassailthesalemadebyJulianainfavorofherbrother
Ireneo,whichsalewasproventohavebeendulysupportedbyvaluableconsideration.19
Onappeal,theCourtofAppealsreversedthetrialcourtsdecision.Itheldthatthedeedisvoidinlightoftheclear
forgeryofthesignatureofCelerinawhocouldnothavegivenherconsenttheretomorethansixyearsafterher
death.Theappellatecourtreasoned:
CelerinaT.Fernando,whoadmittedlydiedonApril28,1988,couldnothavepossibly"affixed"her"signature"to
the document on October 27, 1994 neither could she have secured the misrepresented Community Tax
CertificateNo.6720337fromManilaonJanuary6,1994andworsely,shecouldnothave"personallyappeared"
beforeNotaryPublicJesusM.Bautistaon"October27,1994"and"acknowledgedbefore(him)thatthesamewas
executedof(her)ownfreeactanddeed."EspeciallythatMonserrat,asignatorywhoinsiststhatthedeedwasin
truthexecutedin1986,didnotadduceevidencetosucheffect,otherthanherbaretestimony.Shedidnoteven
profferanyexplanationwhythecorrectdatewasnotmadepartoftheassaileddeed.
xxxx
The discrepancy in the date of execution and notarization of the deed and the date of death of supposed
signatory Celerina are too glaring for Us to overlook and gloss over, moreso, that the evidence offered in
oppositiontheretoismerelyMonserratsbaretestimony.20(underscoringsupplied)
ThustheappellatecourtdisposedinitsDecision21ofJanuary6,2010:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_191889_2011.html

2/6

7/3/2015

G.R.No.191889

WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is GRANTED. Setting aside the assailed April 31, 2005 Decision of the RTC,
judgmentisherebyrendered:
1)DeclaringtheDeedofPartitionwithSaledatedOctober27,1994asNULLandVOID
2)DeclaringfurtherTransferCertificateofTitleNos.120654and120655issuedinthenameofIreneoT.
FernandoandTransferCertificateofTitleNo.120655issuedinthenameofCelerinaT.FernandoasNULL
andVOID
3) Directing the Register of Deeds of Quezon City to revive TCT Nos. RT7108 and RT7109 and
accordingly issue transfer of title over the three lots as now coowned by Irineo T. Fernando married to
MonserratM.Fernando,JulianaT.FernandoandCelerinaT.Fernandoand
4) Ordering the defendantsappellees to pay plaintiffappellant P100,000.00 as moral damages,
P50,000.00asexemplarydamagesandP50,000.00asattorneysfees.
SOORDERED.(underscoringsupplied)
Reconsideration of the appellate courts Decision having been denied by Resolution22 of April 13, 2010,
petitionersfiledthepresentpetitionforreviewoncertiorari,contendingthattheappellatecourt:
. . . disregarded the trial courts factual findings on the authenticity of Celerinas signature as based on the
eyewitness account of Monserrat, who also signed the subject deed, and failed to take into account their
explanationonthedateofexecutionoftheinstrument
. . . failed to recognize that the deed of partition with sale executed by the parties in 1986 does not require
notarizationforthesametobevalid,bindingandenforceable,evengrantingthatanotarialdefectarisingfrom
CelerinasfailuretoappearbeforetheNotaryPublicexistsand
...erredinupholdingrespondentslegalpersonalitytoquestionthevalidityofthedeedofpartitionwithsale.23
Theprincipalissuewhetherthedeedisgenuineinvolvesaquestionoffact.
WhileitissettledthatpetitionsforreviewoncertiorariunderRule45arelimitedtoquestionsoflawastheCourtis
not a trier of facts, the rule admits of exceptions including when the factual findings of the trial and appellate
courtsareconflicting,inwhicheventthisCourtmaystillpassonthesame.24
Thepetitionfails.
Inruling,byaonebriefparagraph,intheaffirmativeontheissueofwhetherCelerinasandJulianassignaturesin
the deed were genuine, the trial court did not provide sufficient legal or factual basis on how it arrived at its
conclusion. It apparently contented itself with just declaring that "the deed . . . does not suffer from any legal
infirmity" since there was allegedly no dispute as to the signatures thereon, and went on to opine that its
notarizationatalaterdatedidnotrenderthedocumentvoidandwithoutlegaleffect.25
Petitionersmaintainthatthedeedwasactuallyexecutedin1986whenCelerinawasstillalive,butnotarizedonly
in1994:
. . . a plain perusal of the Subject Deed will readily show that the font type used for the supposed date of
executionofthedeedasfoundinthebodyisdifferentfromthefonttypeusedfortherestofthedeedbutappears
to be the very same font type used for the notarization. This further affirms that it was the Notary Public who
inserted or caused to be inserted the date "October 27, 1994." 26 (emphasis in the original underscoring
supplied)
Petitionersthusfaultthenotarypublicformakingitappearthatthedateofexecutionofthedeedwasthesame
as the date of its notarization and for including the name of the already deceased Celerina in the
Acknowledgmentportionthereof.
A scrutiny of the deed reveals, however, several significant irregularities which belie petitioners claim of its
authenticity. Thus, while the entry "October 27, 1994" appearing on the date of execution (page 2) and on the
Acknowledgment portion (page 3), the date of notarization, the parties Community Tax Certificates, the
Document,PageandBookNumbersappeartocarryadifferenttypesetindicatingtheinterventionofthenotary
public from that employed in the body of the deed, the words "Series of 1994" as reflected in the
Acknowledgment carry the same typeset used in the body of the document. Consider the following
Acknowledgment:
xxxx
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_191889_2011.html

3/6

7/3/2015

G.R.No.191889

REPUBLICOFTHEPHILIPPINES)
QUEZONCITY)S.S.
BEFOREME,aNotaryPublicforandinQuezonCity,thisOct.27,1994personallyappeared:
JULIANAT.FERNANDOCTC#35411020A/QC/3.1.94
CELERINAT.FERNANDOCTC#6720337/Mla.1.20.94
IRENEOT.FERNANDO/MONSERRATMAGSALINCTC#2506693A/Mla./1.6.94
known to me to be the same persons who executed the foregoing instrument and acknowledged
beforemethatthesamewasexecutedoftheirownfreeactanddeed.
This instrument consists of three (3) pages, including this page, wherein the acknowledgment is
writtenandhasbeensignedbythepartiesandtheirinstrumentalwitnessesoneachandeverypage,
refertoaDeedofPartitionwithSale.
WITNESSMYHANDANDOFFICIALSEALonthedateandplaceabovewritten.
10.27.94
Doc.No.xxxx
270
PageNo.xx55
BookNo.13
Seriesof199427(emphasissuppliedunderscoringintheoriginal)
Itisthusalltooglaringthatthedeedcouldnothavebeen,asadvancedbypetitioners,actuallyexecutedin1986.
Forifindeeditwas,andwithoutbelaboringtheobvious,theentryforthenotarialyearafterthewords"Seriesof"
should have been left in blank, consistent with the other entries which the notary public would fill in (upon
notarization at a later date). Since the words "Series of 1994" and the contents of the deed were obviously
preparedfromtheverysamemachine,itcannotbegainsaidthatitwasdrafted/executedonlyin1994atwhich
timeCelerinacouldnothavebeenapartythereto,shehavingpassedawayin1988.
Whether the notary public was responsible for inserting October 27, 1994 as the date of the execution of the
instrumentisthusnolongermaterial.
AnexaminationofthesignaturesofbothJulianaandCelerinaonthebottomofpage2ofthedeedrevealsthat
their family name "Fernando" appears to have been written by one and the same hand which, to the Courts
nakedeye,issignificant,takingnoteofthesamestyleandflourishwithwhich,particularly,theletters"F"and"D"
wereexecuted,therebyengenderingfurtherdoubtsastothegenuinenessofthedeedortheactualparticipation
oftheconcernedparties.
AsforpetitionersrelianceonthetestimonyofMonserrat(Ireneoswidow),thesamefails. Exceptforherclaim
that she was present when the document was signed by Ireneo, Juliana and Celerina in 1986, little else was
offered by way of collaboration. Monserrat, on crossexamination, could not even recall the names of the
witnessestothedeedoriftheywerepresentduringitssigning.Shedidnotknowwhopreparedthedeedorifher
husband Ireneo or Juliana appeared before the notary public. She could not advance any explanation why the
deedwasnotdatedatthetimeofitsexecutionorwhyitwas,byherclaim,entrustedtoJulianaforsafekeeping,
AndsheprofferednoreasonwhyshefailedtopresentthecheckpaymentforP300,000.00forLotNo.24.28
1 w p h i1

And it bears noting that petitioners never even bothered to present the notary public to testify on the
circumstancessurroundingthebelatednotarizationofthedeed.
InHeirsofRosaDumaliangv.Serban29 where the therein petitionersheirs similarly sought the annulment of a
1962deedofextrajudicialsettlementandsaleuponaclaimthatthesignaturesofsomeoftheheirshadbeen
falsifiedandthattheremainingsignatoriescouldnothavesignedthedeedastheywerealreadydead,thisCourt
stressedinnouncertaintermsthat:
...ifitisestablishedthatpetitionersconsentwasnotgiventothe1962DeedofExtraJudicialSettlementand
SalewhichbecamethebasisfortheissuanceofthenewtitleovertheentirelotinrespondentDamianosnamein
1965,the absence of such consent makes the Deed null and void ab initio and subject to attack anytime. It is
recognizedinourjurisprudencethataforgeddeedisanullityandconveysnotitle.Article1410oftheCivilCode
clearlyprovidesthatanactiontodeclaretheinexistenceofavoidcontractdoesnotprescribe.
Likewise, we have consistently ruled that when there is a showing of such illegality, the property registered is
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_191889_2011.html

4/6

7/3/2015

G.R.No.191889

deemedtobesimplyheldintrustfortherealownerbythepersoninwhosenameitisregistered,andtheformer
thenhastherighttosueforthereconveyanceoftheproperty.Theactionforthepurposeisalsoimprescriptible,
and as long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens system is still in the name of the person who
causedsuchregistration,anactioninpersonamwilllietocompelhimtoreconveythepropertytotherealowner.
Ifindeedpetitionersconsentwasnotgiven,respondentscouldnothaveacquiredownershipoverthe56,804sq
m lot by virtue of the 1962 Deed of ExtraJudicial Settlement and Sale. While a certificate of title was issued in
respondentsfavor,suchtitlecouldnotvestuponthemownershipoftheentirepropertyneithercoulditvalidatea
deed which is null and void. Registration does not vest title it is merely the evidence of such title. Our land
registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has. (emphasis and underscoring
supplied)
WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The assailed January 6, 2010 Decision of the Court of Appeals is
AFFIRMED.
SOORDERED.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
WECONCUR:
ARTUROD.BRION
AssociateJustice

LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

MARIALOURDESP.A.SERENO
AssociateJustice

ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assignedtothewriteroftheopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
PursuanttoSection13,ArticleVIIIoftheConstitution,andtheDivisionChairpersonsAttestation,Icertifythatthe
conclusionsintheabovedecisionhadbeenreachedinconsultationbeforethecasewasassignedtothewriterof
theopinionoftheCourtsDivision.
RENATOC.CORONA
ChiefJustice

Footnotes
1ShouldbeProciloFernandovidenote12.
2AlsointerchangeablyreferredtointherecordsasIrineo.
3Records,Vol.2,pp.573574.
4Id.at575576.
5Id.at577.
6Id.at584.
7Exhibit"D,"id.at578580.
8Id.at581582.
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_191889_2011.html

5/6

7/3/2015

G.R.No.191889

9Id.at583.
10Records,Vol.1,pp.17.
11VideOrderoftheQuezonCityRTC,Br.220inSp.Proc.CaseNo.Q0042034,id.at145147.
12Vide Resolution of January 5, 2000 in Sp. Proc. No. Q9937053 issued by then (now Supreme Court

AssociateJustice)JudgeDiosdadoPeralta,Records,Vol.2,pp.370371.
13Id.at327335.
14Videnote12.
15TSN,August26,2003,September25,2003.
16TSN,January22,2004,pp.112.
17Id.at1323.
18RenderedbyJudgeJoseG.Paneda,records,Vol.2,pp.689694.
19Id.at693694.
20Videnote21at189190.
21 Penned by Associate Justice Vicente S. E. Veloso with the concurrence of Associate Justices Amy C.

LazaroJavierandAndresB.Reyes,Jr.,CArollo,pp.177195.
22Id.at228229.
23Rollo,pp.2627.
24B&IRealtyCo.,Inc.v.Caspe,G.R.No.146972,January29,2008,543SCRA1,7citingBaricuatro,Jr.

v.CourtofAppeals,382Phil.15,24325SCRA137,145(2000)Rosariov.PCILeasingandFinance,Inc.
G.R.No.139233,November112005,474SCRA500,506.
25Videnote18at693.
26Rollo,p.35.
27Videnote7at580.
28TSN,January22,2004,pp.123.
29G.R.No.155133,February21,2007,516SCRA343,357358citingSalomonv.IntermediateAppellate

Court, G.R. No. 70263, May 14, 1990, 185 SCRA 352, 363, Baranda v. Baranda, No. L73275, May 20,
1987,150SCRA59,74,DirectorofLandsv.Addison,49Phil.19(1926).
TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2011/jan2011/gr_191889_2011.html

6/6