View full case

ZENAIDA B. TIGNO v. SPS. ESTAFINO AQUINO

FACTS:

Respondent spouses Estafino and Florentina Aquino filed a complaint against Isidro Bustria seeking to enforce a sale of a fishpond. A compromise agreement was later entered into between Bustria and the Aquinos. After Bustria's death, petitioner Zenaida Tigno attempted to repurchase the property but was denied by the Aquinos. Tigno filed a motion for a writ of execution and an action for revival of judgment. The Aquinos presented a deed of sale allegedly executed by Bustria as evidence, but the RTC ruled it to be false and fraudulent. The RTC also doubted its authenticity due to conflicting testimonies. The RTC ordered the revival of the judgment in favor of Tigno. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's ruling, holding that the deed of sale should have been admitted as a notarized document carries a presumption of regularity. Tigno filed a petition for review before the Supreme Court.

In Tigno's petition before the Supreme Court, she argues that the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion and misappreciation of facts. The Supreme Court notes that a factual review may be warranted when the findings of the trial court and the intermediate appellate court are contrary to each other. Tigno also raises an argument regarding the capacity of the notary public, Judge Cariño, to notarize the Deed of Sale. The Supreme Court found that Judge Cariño did not have the authority to notarize the Deed of Sale as a sitting judge, as demonstrated by a previous ruling in Borre v. Moya. They concluded that the Deed of Sale should be treated as not having been notarized at all.

Petitioner filed a complaint for annulment of a notarized document, alleging forgery of the signature and failure to comply with formalities required by law. Petitioner argues that since the notary public did not personally witness the execution of the document and did not ascertain the identities of the parties, the document should be treated as unnotarized. Respondent argues that the document is valid and should be presumed regular unless proven otherwise.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether a municipal judge's notarization of a document not connected with the exercise of their official duties is valid.

  2. What is the effect of the lack of valid notarization on the admissibility of a document?

  3. Whether or not the Deed of Sale presented by the respondents is valid and enforceable.

  4. Whether or not the testimonies of the witnesses are credible.

  5. Whether the Deed of Sale was duly executed and authentic.

  6. Whether the lower court correctly refused to admit the Deed of Sale.

  7. Whether Tigno's right to repurchase was extinguished at the time of the filing of the Petition for revival of judgment.

RULING:

  1. The Court affirmed the rule prohibiting municipal judges from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to the exceptions laid down in Circular No. 1-90.

  2. If a notary public does not have the capacity to notarize a document but does so anyway, the document should be treated as unnotarized. The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect, converting it into a public document and rendering it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.

  3. The Deed of Sale presented by the respondents is not valid and enforceable. The RTC found that the respondents only alleged the existence of the Deed of Sale for the first time when they filed their answer to the petitioner's current action to revive judgment. The RTC also noted that the respondents did not invoke the Deed of Sale in their opposition to the petitioner's previous attempts to exercise the right to repurchase. The RTC concluded that the Deed of Sale was not in existence when the petitioner moved for consignation and execution of judgment in 1990.

  4. The testimonies of the witnesses are not credible. The RTC pointed out inconsistencies in the testimonies of the witnesses, specifically regarding who prepared the Deed of Sale. The Court of Appeals did not address this inconsistency, but found no contradictions in the testimonies as to whether or not Bustria signed the Deed of Sale. However, the Court found that the doubts raised by the RTC, such as the lack of receipts and the differences in the signatures of Bustria, further militate against the claims of the respondents.

  5. The Deed of Sale is considered a private document, thus, its due execution and authenticity must be proven. The testimonies of the witnesses presented were inconsistent and contradictory, casting doubt on the credibility of the witnesses and the document itself. Therefore, the lower court correctly refused to admit the Deed of Sale.

  6. The lower court had sufficient basis to conclude that the Deed of Sale is a spurious document, as it was unnotarized and its execution and authenticity were not proven. The evidence presented was clear and convincing enough to rebut the presumption of regularity arising from the due execution of notarial documents.

  7. Since the Deed of Sale was successfully assailed and proven to be invalid, Tigno's right to repurchase was not extinguished. The Court of Appeals erred in concluding otherwise, thus the reinstatement of the lower court's decision is warranted.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Municipal judges are prohibited from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, subject to exceptions (Circular No. 1-90).

  • The validity of a notarial certification derives from the authority of the notarial officer, and if the notary public does not have the capacity to notarize a document, it should be treated as unnotarized.

  • Notarization of a document converts it into a public document and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.

  • The lack of valid notarization of a document affects its admissibility and its proper probative value is governed by the Rules of Court.

  • Private documents need to be proved for their authenticity and due execution either by someone who saw the document executed or written, or by evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.

  • The court gives deference to the RTC's findings of fact as the primary trier of fact.

  • The burden of proving the validity of a document lies with the party presenting it.

  • Inconsistencies in the testimonies of witnesses may affect their credibility.

  • A private document must not only be proven to have been duly executed but also authenticated.

  • Inconsistencies and contradictions in the testimonies of witnesses can cast doubt on the due execution and authenticity of a document.

  • The presumption of regularity arising from the due execution of notarial documents can be rebutted by clear and convincing evidence.

  • The right to repurchase is not extinguished if the validity of the sale is successfully assailed.