3\tpuhlit of tbt ~bilippin~

g;,uptemt Qtourt
:fflanila

SECOND DIVISION

SPS. RONICO LOPEZ* and G.R. No. 250846

MARCELINA LOPEZ, and SPS.
GLORIA LOPEZ ADORZA and Present:
NICOMEDES ADORZA,
Petitioners, PERLAS-BERNABE, S.A.J.,
Chairperson,
- versus - HERNANDO,
INTING,
SPS. ADOLFO and SUSANA GAERLAN, and
POTOY, SPS. VICTOR and DIMAAMPAO, JJ.
BERLINA LUMAPAT, SPS.
JUANITO AND LUZ POTOY, SPS.
TEOFISTO and SOTERA POTOY,
SPS. ALLAN AND CARMELITA
POTOY, SPS. HERBERTO** AND
ROSARIO POTOY, SPS. SONNY
AND ELENITA POTOY, SPS.
MANITO AND SHIRLEY
PALLER, SPS. REYNALDO AND
MARILOU DOLLOSO, SPS.
RICARDO AND ISIDRA
SIBAYAN, AND SPS. VICTOR Promulgated:
AND LOLITA BONJOC,
Respondents.

RESOLUTION

INTING, J.:

Before the Court is a Petition1 for Review on Certiorari under

Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2 dated January 24,
• Petitioner Ronico Lopez died on May 2, 2009 and was substituted by his heirs Marcelina Lopez,
Johnny Lopez, Rosemary L. Villacorta and Ronico Lopez, Jr., per Order dated February 22, 2010
of the Regional Trial Court, rollo, p. 97.
** Referred to as Hereberto in some parts of the rollo.
1
Id at 5-26.
Id. at 96-104; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices
Resolution 2 G.R. No. 250846

2019 and the Resolution3 dated November 5, 2019 of the Court of

Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 04771. The CA reversed and set aside
4
the Decision dated July 20, 2012 of Branch 35, Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Ormoc City in Civil Case No. 4677-0.

The Antecedents

Spouses Roni co Lopez (Roni co) and Marcelina Lopez and

Spouses Gloria Lopez Adorza (Gloria) and Nicomedes Adorza
(collectively, petitioners) filed a Complaint5 for Quieting of Title and
Damages against respondents 6 that sought to quiet title over a parcel of
land registered in the name of petitioners under Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. 28487, 7 measured at 80,000 square meters (sq. m.),
described as Lot No. 9194-B of subdivision plan (LRC) Psd 277952, and
situated in Barrio Nueva Vista, Ormoc City (subject property). 8

The subject property was originally part of Lot No. 9194

registered in the name of Ronico and Gloria's parents, Severino Lopez
(Severino) and Esperanza Lopez (Esperanza), under TCT No. 2556 9 and
measured at 261,425 sq. m. 10

Petitioners denied having executed any deed of conveyance

covering the subject property and averred that respondents' allegation
that they acquired a two-hectare portion of Lot No. 9194 was baseless. 11

Respondents countered that Severino and Esperanza sold to

Agustin Potoy (Agustin) a two-hectare portion of Lot No. 9194
registered under TCT No. 2556 as evidenced by a notarized Deed of
Louis P. Acosta and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
3
Id. at 126-128; penned by Associate Justice Pamela Ann Abella Maxino with Associate Justices
Marilyn B. Lagura-Yap and Dorothy P. Montejo-Gonzaga, concurring.
4
Id. at 57-62; penned by Presiding Judge Apolinario M. Buaya.
' Id. at 28-34.
6
The following are respondents: Spouses Adolfo and Susana Potoy, Spouses Victor and Berlina
Lumapat, Spouses Juanito and Luz Potoy. Spouses Teofisto and Sotera Potoy, Spouses Allan and
Carmelita Potoy, Spouses Herbe1to and Rosario Potoy, Spouses Sonny and Elenita Potoy, Spouses
Manito and Shirley Paller, Spouses Reynaldo and Marilou Dolloso, Spouses Ricardo and Isidra
Sibayan, and Spouses Victor and Lolita Bonjoc.
Id. at36-37.
8
Id. at 29.
9
Id. at 45-46.
10
Id. at 98.
II [d, at 57.
Resolution 3 G.R. No. 250846

12
Absolute Sale executed in their local dialect. Agustin then executed an
Affidavit of Adverse Claim 13 which caused the inscription of Entry No.
14
28508 on TCT No. 2556. 15 However, the adverse claim was canceled
together with TCT No. 2556 upon the issuance of TCT No. 20066 to
Dionisio Torrevillas (Torrevillas) and Esperanza Larrazabal as
purchasers of Lot No. 9194. 16

The Ruling of the RTC

In the Decision 17 dated July 20, 2012, the RTC found, by

preponderance of evidence, that the claim of respondents was without
merit; and it ordered them to respect the ownership of petitioners over
the subject property. It also adjudged attorney's fees and costs of
litigation in favor of petitioners. 18

The RTC ruled that: (1) respondents did not present any evidence
to prove their relationship to the deceased Agustin; 19 (2) they failed to
establish which portion of the property was sold to Agustin considering
that Lot No. 9194 is 261,425 sq. m.; and (3) it was Torrevillas who
caused the cancellation of Agustin's adverse claim and not petitioners. 20
It was not convinced of the validity of the sale in favor of Agustin in
view of the Notary Public's doubt as to the identity and capacities of the
parties to the instrument. 21

The RTC disposed of the case; thus:

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, this Court hereby

finds the preponderance of evidence to be in favor of the plaintiffs as
judgment is rendered quieting title of the plaintiffs over Lot no. 9194-
B-4 now covered by TCT No. 48970 and declaring the claim of the
defendants to be without merit. The defendants are hereby ordered to
respect the ownership of the plaintiffs over the property in litigation,

12 Id. at 48. See also Kalig-onan sa Pagbaligya dated October 25, 1969, id. at 47.
13
Id. at 49.
14
Id. at 45-A.
15
Id. at 57-58.
16
Id. at 58.
17
Id. at 57-62.
18
Id. at 61-62.
19
Id. at 60.
20
Id. at 61.
21 Id.
Resolution 4 G.R. No. 250846

and are hereby ordered to pay to the plaintiffs, the amount of twenty
five thousand pesos (P25,000.00) as attorney's fees and the amount of
thirteen thousand nine hundred fifty seven and 75/100 (Pl3,957.75)
representing litigation expenses.

SO ORDERED. 22

The Ruling of the CA

In the assailed Decision23 dated January 24, 2019, the CA reversed

and set aside the RTC Decision, the dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, the present appeal is GRANTED. The

Decision dated July 20, 2012, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35,
Ormoc City in Civil Case No. 4677-0 is REVERSED and SET
ASIDE. Plaintiffs-Appellees' Complaint dated October 18, 2006 is
DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 24

The CA expressed a different appreciation of facts and reversed

and set aside the RTC Decision: ( 1) it upheld the validity of the sale as
its being duly notarized converted it into a public document which
enjoyed the presumption of regularity and that petitioners failed to
overturn this presumption by clear and convincing evidence; 25 (2) it lent
no credence to petitioners' denial of having signed the duly notarized
Deed of Absolute Sale as no other evidence was presented to show that it
was not validly executed; 26 (3) it disagreed with the RTC's conclusion
that the Notary Public's testimony could not be given too much weight
and should be received with caution considering the passage of time and
the natural tendency of notaries public to validate documents they
allegedly notarized for fear of administrative liabilities; 27 and ( 4) it held
that it was sufficient that the Notary Public testified that at the time the
Deed of Absolute Sale was signed before him, he personally knew the
parties, and that each party signed the document in his presence. 28

22
Id.at61-62.
23
Id. at 96-104.
24
Id. at I 04.
7
' Id. at I 02-103.
2c, Id.
27
Id. at 103.
2s ld.
~Resolution 5 G.R. No. 250846

Aggrieved, petitioners elevated the case to the Comi via a Petition

for Review on Certiorari.

The Issue

The lone issue brought forth in the petition is whether the CA

committed reversible error in dismissing the Complaint for Quieting of
Title anchored on the presumption of regularity accorded to the notarized
Deed of Absolute Sale.

The Courts Ruling

The petition is devoid of merit.

Petitioners reiterate that there is no deed of sale involving the

subject property because they neither executed nor signed any, although
they do not allege forgery as to the signatures appearing on the Deed of
Absolute Sale. 29 They argue that the presumption of regularity of a
notarized document cannot be applied when there is unce1iainty by the
notary public as regards the identity and legal capacities of the parties to
the instrument. 30

The Court is not convinced.

A notarized instrument has in its favor the presumption of

regularity. In the case, there is evidence that the sale between Esperanza
Lopez and her children namely: Ronico, Catalina, and Gloria, as sellers;
and Agustin, married to Crescenciana, as buyer was executed and
notarized before Notary Public Demosthenes Tugonon (Tugonon). 31 The
respondents presented the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed in
favor of Agustin which Tugonon duly identified in his testimony in
32
COUli.

29
Id. at 13.
30
Id. at 12- 17.
31
Id. at 48.
32
TSN, October 25, 2011, pp. 8-9.
Resolution 6 G.R. No. 2508..46

Being a public document, the subject notarized Deed of Absolute

Sale enjoys the presumption of regularity. To overcome this
presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence. Absent such
evidence, the presumption must be upheld. 33

In the case, Tugonon, as the Notary Public who notarized the

instrument, testified that Esperanza Lopez and her children: Ronico,
Catalina, and Gloria, together with Agustin, went to his office sometime
in 1969 for the execution and notarization of a deed of sale. 34 He
admitted that he personally knew the Lopezes from Brgy. Buena Vista
because of a religious organization they founded. 35 He further admitted
that Esperanza and her children: Ronico, Catalina, and Gloria personally
appeared before him and signed the Deed of Absolute Sale in his
presence. 36

The testimony of a notary public, who is an officer of the court,

enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness, especially if the
latter's testimony consists of nothing more than mere denials. 37
Petitioners vehemently denied having executed any deed of sale in favor
of Agustin. 38 But aside from Gloria's bare denial, petitioners failed to
present any other evidence to prove their claim that they never executed
a deed of sale in favor of Agustin involving the subject property.

One who denies the due execution of a deed where his or her
signature appears has the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in
the acknowledgment, one neither appeared before the notary public nor
acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act. 39 Although Gloria alleged
minority at the time of the execution and notarization of the Deed of
Absolute Sale to support her denial, 40 she failed to present competent
evidence to prove such defense. Her testimony paled in comparison with
that of Tugonon, who stated in no uncertain terms that petitioners,
including Gloria, signed the Deed of Absolute Sale in his presence.

33 Chua v. Westmont Bank, 683 Phil. 56, 66 (2012).

34
TSN, October 25, 2011, pp. 8-9.
1s Id.
36
Id. at 19-21.
37 Belgica v. Belgica, 558 Phil. 67, 75 (2007), citing Sales v. Court ofAppeals, 286 Phil. 1026, 1033
(1992), Carandang-Col/antes v. Capuno, 208 Phil. 572, 589 (1983).
38
Rollo, p. 13.
39 Chua v. Westmont Bank, supra note 33 at 65, citing Spouses Santos v. Spouses Lumbao, 548 Phil.
332, 349 (2007).
40
TSN, December 1, 2010, p. 32.
• Resolution 7 G.R. No. 250846

Respondents' undisputed possession of the subject property since

41
1969 is also convincing evidence that demonstrates the existence of the
sale. Otherwise, petitioners would have earlier asserted and exercised
their right to take over the property.

Under the foregoing circumstances, the second indispensable

requisite for an action to quiet title to prosper was not met, namely: the
deed, claim, encumbrance, or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on
one's title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its
prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy. Petitioners failed to
discharge the burden of proving their claim that no deed of sale was
executed in favor of Agustin covering the subject property.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated

January 24, 2019 and the Resolution dated November 5, 2019 of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 04771 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

HEN . INTING

WE CONCUR:

ESTELA Mm~BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

SAM:E~AN
Associate Justice Associate Justice

41
Rollo, p. 99.
Resolution 8 G.R. No. 2SOS46

Associate Justice

ATTESTATION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been

reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court's Division.

.tAO.~
1
ESTELA M. tf>'tRLAS-BERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution and the

Division Chairperson's Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in the above
Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to
the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

G. GESMUNDO ._