CASE DIGEST
Chingkoe v. Chingkoe
G.R. No. 244076, [March 16, 2022]
THIRD, LOPEZ, M.
Land Titles and
Deeds; Presumption of Regularity of Notarized Deed of Sale; Clear and
Convincing Evidence to prove contrary
Notarized documents enjoy a presumption of regularity, authenticity, and due execution, which can only be overturned by clear and convincing evidence. In the absence of such evidence, the court should uphold the presumption and consider the document valid.
Faustino Chingkoe (Faustino) and his wife, Gloria Chingkoe (Gloria), owned a parcel of land in Quezon City. In 1990, Faustino allowed his brother, Felix Chingkoe (Felix), to occupy the property. At the request of their mother, Tan Po Chu, Faustino signed an undated Deed of Sale conveying the property to Felix, who claimed to have been in possession since 1989. In 1994, a notarized Deed of Sale was executed, but Faustino refused to surrender the Owner's Duplicate of the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), hindering its transfer to Felix. Felix filed a complaint for specific performance, leading to an RTC decision in his favor, upheld on appeal, ordering Faustino to surrender the TCT. The CA later reversed the decision, finding the contract void for lack of consideration.
Whether or not the CA erred in reversing the RTC's decision and declaring the Deed of Sale void for lack of consideration.
YES. The Supreme Court granted the petition,
reinstating the RTC's decision, which affirmed Felix's entitlement to the
property based on the validly executed Deed of Sale. The notarized Deed of Sale carried a presumption of
regularity, which could only be overturned by clear and convincing evidence.
The CA relied on Tan Po Chu's testimony, but it was insufficient to contest the
regularity of the document. Tan Po Chu admitted her incompetence to attest to
the sale's validity. The trial court correctly found her testimony
insufficient. The court emphasized the trial court's unique position to
evaluate witness credibility. The CA erred in declaring the contract void due
to Felix's failure to prove payment, as actual payment is not an essential
requisite of a valid contract. The Deed of Sale's terms attested to full
payment. Faustino's claims were considered flimsy, and Felix's unrealized
profits claim lacked evidentiary support. The court upheld the RTC's decision,
emphasizing the principle of not relieving parties from voluntarily assumed
obligations despite unfavorable contracts. The claim for actual damages was
denied due to lack of competent proof. The CA decision was reversed, and the
RTC decision was reinstated.
No comments:
Post a Comment