Sunday, October 26, 2014

SARILI VS. LAGROSA G.R. No. 193517 January 15, 2014



Facts: Respondent is the owner of a certain parcel of land which he has been religiously paying the real estate taxes for since its acquisition. Respondent is a resident of California, USA, and during his vacation in the Philippines, he discovered that a new certificate of title to the subject property was issued by the RD in the name of Victorino married to Isabel Amparoby virtue of a falsified Deed of Absolute Sale dated February 16, 1978 (February 16, 1978 deed of sale) purportedly executed by him and his wife, Amelia U. Lagrosa.
In their answer, Sps. Sarili maintained that they are innocent purchasers for value, having purchased the subject property from Ramon B. Rodriguez, who possessed and presented a Special Power of Attorney to sell/dispose of the same, and, in such capacity, executed a Deed of Absolute Sale dated November 20, 1992 conveying the said property in their favor. In this relation, they denied any participation in the preparation of the February 16, 1978 deed of sale, which may have been merely devised by the "fixer" they hired to facilitate the issuance of the title in their names.
Issue: Whether there is a valid conveyance of the property?
Ruling: The strength of the buyer’s inquiry on the seller’s capacity or legal authority to sell depends on the proof of capacity of the seller. If the proof of capacity consists of a special power of attorney duly notarized, mere inspection of the face of such public document already constitutes sufficient inquiry. If no such special power of attorney is provided or there is one but there appears to be flaws in its notarial acknowledgment, mere inspection of the document will not do; the buyer must show that his investigation went beyond the document and into the circumstances of its execution.
Settled is the rule that a defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument, and the evidentiary standard of its validity shall be based on preponderance of evidence.
Since Sps. Sarili’s claim over the subject property is based on forged documents, no valid title had been transferred to them.



No comments:

Post a Comment