812 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domingo vs. Robles

*
G.R. No. 153743. March 18, 2005.

NORMA B. DOMINGO, petitioner, vs. YOLANDA

ROBLES and MICHAEL MALABANAN ROBLES,
MARICON MALABANAN ROBLES, MICHELLE
MALABANAN ROBLES, All Minors Represented by Their
Mother, YOLANDA ROBLES, respondents.

Actions; Appeals; Evidence; Factual findings of the trial court,

when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are binding on the
Supreme Court.—It is a well-established principle that factual
findings of the trial court, when affirmed by the Court of Appeals,
are binding on this Court. Petitioner has given this Court no
cogent reason to deviate from this rule; on the contrary, the
findings of the courts a quo are amply supported by the evidence
on record.
Evidence; Notarial Law; Presumptions; A notarized
instrument enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and
due execution—clear and convincing evidence must be presented to
overcome such legal presumption.—Petitioner claims that her
signature and that of her husband were forged in the Deed of
Absolute Sale transferring the property from the Domingo
spouses to respondent. Relying on the general rule that a forged
deed is void and conveys no title, she assails the validity of the
sale. It is a well-settled rule, however, that a notarized
instrument enjoys a prima facie presumption of authenticity and
due execution. Clear and convincing evidence must be presented
to overcome such legal presumption. Forgery cannot be

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

813

VOL. 453, MARCH 18, 2005 813

/
 Domingo vs. Robles

presumed; hence, it was incumbent upon petitioner to prove it.

This, she failed to do.
Same; Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof.—Petitioner also failed to convince the trial
court that the person with whom Respondent Yolanda Robles
transacted was in fact not Valentino Domingo. Except for her
insistence that her husband was out of the country, petitioner
failed to present any other clear and convincing evidence that
Valentino was not present at the time of the sale. Bare
allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to
proof.
Same; Sales; Presumptions; Without a clear and persuasive
substantiation of bad faith, a presumption of good faith in favor of
the buyer stands.—Petitioner now stresses the issue of good faith
on the part of respondents. In the absence of a finding of fraud
and a consequent finding of authenticity and due execution of the
Deed of Absolute Sale, a discussion of whether respondents were
purchasers in good faith is wholly unnecessary. Without a clear
and persuasive substantiation of bad faith, a presumption of good
faith in their favor stands.
Same; Same; Land Titles; The registered owner who places in
the hands of another an executed document of transfer of
registered land effectively represents to a third party that the
holder of such document is authorized to deal with the property.—
The sale was admittedly made with the aid of Bacani, petitioner’s
agent, who had with him the original of the owner’s duplicate
Certificate of Title to the property, free from any liens or
encumbrances. The signatures of Spouses Domingo, the registered
owners, appear on the Deed of Absolute Sale. Petitioner’s husband
met with Respondent Yolanda Robles and received payment for
the property. The Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to
registration, the production of the owner’s certificate of title and
the instrument of conveyance. The registered owner who places in
the hands of another an executed document of transfer of
registered land effectively represents to a third party that the
holder of such document is authorized to deal with the property.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

814

814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domingo vs. Robles

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

/
      Editha Arciaga-Santos for petitioner.
     De Los Angeles, Aguirre, Olaguer for respondents.

PANGANIBAN, J.:

Forgery must be proven by the party alleging it; it cannot

be presumed. To prevent a forged transfer from being
registered, the Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to
registration, the production of the owner’s certificate of
title and the instrument of conveyance. A registered owner
who places in the hands of another an executed document
of transfer of registered land effectively represents to a
third party that the holder
1
of such document is authorized
to deal with the property.

The Case
2
Before us is a Petition for Review under Rule 45 of the
3
Rules of Court, challenging the May 27, 2002 Decision of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 53842. The
decretal portion of the assailed Decision reads:

“IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING, [there being] no

reversible error in the challenged decision, the same is hereby
AFFIRMED, in toto, and the instant 4
appeal ordered
DISMISSED. Costs against the [petitioner].”
5
On the other hand, the affirmed Decision of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 272 of Marikina, disposed as
follows:

_______________

1 Blondeau v. Nano, 61 Phil. 625, July 26, 1935.

2 Rollo, pp. 3-12.
3 Id., pp. 17-25. Ninth Division. Penned by Justice Conrado M. Vasquez
Jr. (Division chairman) and concurred in by Justices Andres B. Reyes Jr.
and Mario L. Guariña III (members).
4 CA Decision, p. 9; Rollo, p. 25.
5 Rollo, pp. 45-55.

815

VOL. 453, MARCH 18, 2005 815

Domingo vs. Robles

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, 6

the complaint subject of
this decision is hereby DISMISSED.”

/
The Facts

The facts are narrated by the CA as follows:

“The historical backdrop shows that [petitioner] and her husband,

Valentino Domingo, were the registered owners of Lot 19, Block 1,
subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-15706 located at Cristina Subdivision,
Concepcion, Marikina and covered by Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 53412. On this lot, [Petitioner] Norma B. Domingo
discontinued the construction of her house allegedly for failure of
her husband to send the necessary financial support. So, she
decided to dispose of the property.
“A friend, Flor Bacani, volunteered to act as [petitioner’s] agent
in selling the lot. Trusting Bacani, [petitioner] delivered their
owner’s copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 53412 to him
(Bacani). Later, the title was said to have been lost. In the
petition for its reconstitution, [petitioner] gave Bacani all her
receipts of payment for real estate taxes. At the same time,
Bacani asked [petitioner] to sign what she recalled was a record of
exhibits. Thereafter, [petitioner] waited patiently but Bacani did
not show up any more.
“On November 1, 1994, [Petitioner] Norma Domingo visited the
lot and was surprised to see the [respondents] (Robles, for short)
starting to build a house on the subject lot. A verification with the
Register of Deeds revealed that the reconstituted Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 53412 had already been cancelled with the
registration of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991 signed
by Norma B. Domingo and her husband Valentino Domingo, as
sellers, and [Respondent] Yolanda Robles, for herself and
representing the other minor [respondents], as buyers. As a
consequence, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 201730 was issued
on June 10, 1991 in the name of [Respondent] Robles.
“Claiming not to have met any of the [respondents] nor having
signed any sale over the property in favor of anybody (her
husband being abroad at the time), [petitioner] assumed that the
Deed of

_______________

6 RTC Decision, p. 10; Rollo, p. 55, penned by Judge Reuben P. De la Cruz.

816

816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domingo vs. Robles

Absolute Sale dated May 9, 1991 is a forgery and, therefore, could

not validly transfer ownership of the lot to the [respondents].
Hence, the case for the nullity thereof and its reconveyance.
/
 “[Respondents] Robles responded alleging to be buyers in good
faith and for value. They narrate that the subject lot was offered
to them by Flor Bacani, as the agent of the owners; that after
some time when they were already prepared to buy the lot, Bacani
introduced to them the supposed owners and agreed on the sale;
then, on May 9, 1991, Bacani and the introduced seller presented
a Deed of Absolute Sale already signed by Valentino and Norma
Domingo needing only her (Robles’) signature. Presented likewise
at that meeting, where she paid full purchase price, was the
original of the owner’s duplicate of Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 53412.
“Then sometime later, [Respondents] Robles contracted to sell
the lot in issue in favor of spouses Danilo and Herminigilda Deza
for P250,000.00. [Respondent] Yolanda Robles even had to secure
a guardianship authority over the persons and properties of her
minor children from the Regional Trial Court of Pasig in JDRC
No. 2614. When only P20,000.00 remained unpaid of the total
purchase price under the contract to sell, payment was stopped
because of the letter received by Yolanda Robles that [petitioner]
intends to sue her.
“After due proceedings, the [Regional Trial Court] rendered
7
its
Decision dated May 13, 1996, dismissing the complaint.”

Ruling of the Court of Appeals

The CA held that respondents were purchasers in good

faith and for value. According to its findings, (a) the sale
was admittedly made through petitioner’s agent; (b) as
Domingo’s agent, Bacani brought with him the original of
the owner’s duplicate Certificate of Title of the property
and some receipts; (c) the reconstituted title presented to
the buyers was free from any liens, encumbrances or
adverse interests of other persons; and (d) the land was
unoccupied. Petitioner was not able to present, against
these established facts, any evidence to prove that
respondents had prior knowledge of

_______________

7 CA Decision, pp. 2-4; Rollo, pp. 18-20. Citations omitted.

817

VOL. 453, MARCH 18, 2005 817

Domingo vs. Robles

any other person’s right to or interest over the property in

question. 8
Hence, this Petition. /
Issue

Petitioner submits this sole issue for our consideration:

“To determine whether or not the petitioner is entitled to her

claims, the issue worthy of consideration by the Honorable Court
in the instant
9
case is WHO IS A PURCHASER IN GOOD
FAITH?”

The Court’s Ruling

The Petition has no merit.

Sole Issue:
Acquisition of Valid Title

It is a well-established principle that factual findings of the

trial court, when affirmed
10
by the Court of Appeals, are
binding on this Court. Petitioner has given this Court no
cogent reason to deviate from this rule; on the contrary, the
findings of the courts a quo are amply supported by the
evidence on record.
Petitioner claims that her signature and that of her
husband were forged in the Deed of Absolute Sale
transferring the property from the Domingo spouses to
respondent. Rely-

_______________

8 The case was deemed submitted for decision on March 15, 2004, upon
receipt by this Court of respondents’ Memorandum, signed by Atty.
Shirley M. Olaguer. Petitioner’s Memorandum, signed by Atty. Editha
Arciaga-Santos, was received by the Court on February 27, 2004.
9 Petitioner’s Memorandum, p. 5; Rollo, p. 114.
10 Ceballos v. Intestate Estate of Emigdio Mercado, G.R. No. 155856,
May 28, 2004, 430 SCRA 323.

818

818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Domingo vs. Robles

ing on the general

11
rule that a forged deed is void and
conveys no title, she assails the validity of the sale.
It is a well-settled rule, however, that a notarized
instrument enjoys a prima 12facie presumption of
authenticity and due execution. Clear and convincing
/
evidence must be presented to overcome such legal
presumption. Forgery cannot be presumed;
13
hence, it was
incumbent upon petitioner to prove it. This, she failed to
do. On this point, the CA observed:

“x x x. What surprises the Court is that a comparison of the

signature of appellant Norma Domingo in the Deed of Absolute
Sale in favor of the appellees and the signature in the verification
of the complaint manifest a striking similarity to the point that
without any contrary proof, it would be safe to conclude that said
signatures were written by one and the same person. Sadly,
appellant left that matter14 that way without introducing
counteracting evidence. x x x”

Petitioner also failed to convince the trial court that the

person with whom Respondent Yolanda Robles transacted
was in fact not Valentino Domingo. Except for her
insistence that her husband was out of the country,
petitioner failed to present any other clear and convincing
evidence that Valentino was not present at the time of the
sale. Bare allegations,
15
unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof.
Petitioner now stresses the issue of good faith on the
part of respondents. In the absence of a finding of fraud
and a consequent finding of authenticity and due execution
of the Deed of Absolute Sale, a discussion of whether
respondents

_______________

11 Director of Lands v. Addison, 49 Phil. 19, March 25, 1926.

12 Bautista v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 158015, August 11, 2004, 436
SCRA 141; Manzano v. Perez, Sr., 414 Phil. 728; 362 SCRA 430, August 9,
2001; Nuguid v. Court of Appeals, 171 SCRA 213, March 13, 1989.
13 Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, 230 SCRA 550, March 1, 1994.
14 CA Decision, p. 8; Rollo, p. 24.
15 Manzano v. Perez, Sr., supra.

819

VOL. 453, MARCH 18, 2005 819

Domingo vs. Robles

were purchasers in good faith is wholly unnecessary.

Without a clear and persuasive substantiation of16bad faith,
a presumption of good faith in their favor stands.
The sale was admittedly made with the aid of Bacani,
petitioner’s agent, who had with him the original of the
owner’s duplicate Certificate of Title to the property, free
from any liens or encumbrances. The signatures of Spouses
/
 Domingo, the registered owners, appear on the Deed of
Absolute Sale. Petitioner’s husband met with Respondent
Yolanda Robles and received payment for the property. The
Torrens Act requires, as a prerequisite to registration, the
production of the owner’s certificate of title and the
instrument of conveyance. The registered owner who places
in the hands of another an executed document of transfer of
registered land effectively represents to a third party that
the holder
17
of such document is authorized to deal with the
property.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED and the assailed
Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against petitioner.
SO ORDERED.

          Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Carpio-Morales and

Garcia, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, assailed decision affirmed.

Note.—Contradiction between a witness and the Notary

Public who notarized the purported instrument casts doubt
on the credibility of the former as it is ostensible that his or
her version of the story is concocted. (Lustan vs. Court of
Appeals, 266 SCRA 663 [1997])

——o0o——

_______________

16 Heirs of Gregorio v. Court of Appeals, 300 SCRA 565, December 29,

1998.
17 Blondeau v. Nano, supra; Tenio-Obsequio v. Court of Appeals, supra.

820

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.