Eddie Dizon and Bryan Dizon v. Yolanda Vida Beltran, G.R. No. 221071, January 18, 2017

FACTS:

Eddie, married to Verona, started working as a seafarer in the 1980s. He has two children, namely, Bryan and James Christopher Dizon.

Verona was a housewife. She and her mother, together with Bryan and James, resided in the house on the disputed property located in Davao City. The registered owners were "Verona, married to Eddie."

In 2008, Verona filed before the RTC a petition for the issuance of Temporary and Permanent Protection Orders against Eddie and James.

On April 9, 2008, the Spouses Dizon entered into a Compromise Agreement, whereby they contemplated selling the disputed property in the amount of not less than ₱4,000,000, which price shall be increased by ₱100,000 for every succeeding year until the same is finally sold. They would thereafter equally divide the proceeds from the sale.

On September 27, 2009, Eddie left for abroad. Verona died on December 8, 2009.

On December 9, 2009, Eddie’s brother Jun Dizon informed him about Verona's death. Upon Eddie’s return, a copy of a Deed of Absolute Sale, dated December, 1, 2009, was shown to Eddie. Its subject was the disputed property conveyed to herein respondent, Yolanda Vida Beltran, for ₱1,500,000.

Eddie alleged that the Deed was falsified, and his and Verona's signatures were forgeries. In January of 2010, Eddie filed a complaint against Vida the for nullification of the Deed. He also caused the annotation of a notice of lis pendens upon TCT No. T-351707.

On April 6, 20 l 0, TCT No. T-351707 was cancelled, and in its place, TCT No. T-146-2010002236 was issued in Vida's name. Eddie belatedly discovered about the foregoing fact sometime in May 2010.

On November 11, 2011, the MTCC rendered a Decision directing the petitioners and their co-defendants to turn over to Vida the possession of the disputed property.

The RTC reversed the MTCC ruling.

The CA reversed the MTCC.

 

ISSUE:

Vida has a cause of action for unlawful detainer against the petitioners considering that the Deed she relied upon in filing her complaint was falsified, hence, null

 

RULING:

NO. In Consolacion D. Romero and Rosario S.D. Domingo v. Engracia D. Singson, where there were similar allegations of forgery and the issue of ownership was raised in the ejectment case, the Court pronounced:

The CA nonetheless committed serious and patent error in concluding that based solely on respondent's TCT 12575 issued in her name, she must be considered the singular owner of the subject property and thus entitled to possession thereof - pursuant to the principle that "the person who has a Torrens Title over a land is entitled to possession thereof."

When the deed of sale in favor of respondent was purportedly executed by the parties thereto and notarized on June 6, 2006, it is perfectly obvious that the signatures of the vendors therein, Macario and Felicidad, were forged. They could not have signed the same, because both were by then long deceased: Macario died on February 22, 1981, while Felicidad passed away on September 14, 1997. This makes the June 6, 2006 deed of sale null and void; being so, it is "equivalent to nothing; it produces no civil effect; and it does not create, modify or extinguish a juridical relation."

"Verily, when the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the owner's duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the property."

With the Court's determination that respondent's title is null and void, the matter of direct or collateral attack is a foregone conclusion as well. "An action to declare the nullity of a void title does not prescribe and is susceptible to direct, as well as to collateral, attack;" petitioners were not precluded from questioning the validity of respondent's title in the ejectment case.

In the case at bar, when the Deed was executed on December 1, 2009, Eddie claimed that he was abroad while Verona was already unconscious. Vida did not directly refute these allegations and instead pointed out that the Deed was pre-signed in April of 2008.

Further, in Dela Rama, et al. v. Papa, et al., the Court elucidated that:

With respect to deeds of sale or conveyance, what spells the difference between a public document and a private document is the acknowledgment in the former that the parties acknowledging the document appear before the notary public and specifically manifest under oath that they are the persons who executed it, and acknowledge that the same are their free act and deed.

Respondent failed to confirm before the RTC that he had actually appeared before the notary public, a bare minimum requirement under Public Act No. 2103. Such defect will not ipso facto void the deed of sale. However, it eliminates the presumptions that are carried by notarized public documents and subject the deed of sale to a different level of scrutiny than that relied on by the CA. The Court dispensed with the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to duly notarized documents, and instead applied preponderance of evidence as the measure to test the validity of that doctiment.

In the instant petition, Vida impliedly admits the irregularity of the Deed's notarization as both of the vendors were not personally present. Consequently, clue execution can no longer be presumed. Besides, the extant circumstances surrounding the controversy constitute preponderant evidence suggesting that forgery was committed. Eddie promptly filed a criminal case for falsification of documents and a civil case to nullify the Deed. Later, the Office of the Davao City Prosecutor found probable cause to indict Vida for falsification. Consequently, the issue of ownership cannot be disregarded in the unlawful detainer case. It bears stressing though that while the RTC aptly resolved the issue of ownership, it is at best preliminary and shall not be determinative of the outcome of the two other cases filed by Eddie against Vida.