This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
[G.R. No. 168220. August 31, 2005]
SPS. RUDY PARAGAS and CORA ON !. PARAGAS, petitioners, vs. "RS. O# DO$%NADOR !A&ACANO, na'()*+ DO$%N%C, RODO&#O, NAN,--, and CYR%C, a)) su.na'(d !A&ACANO, .(/.(s(nt(d 0* NAN,--, !A&ACANO and A&#R,DO !A&ACANO, respondents. R,SO&U-%ON C"%CO1NA AR%O, J.+ This petition for review seeks to annul the Decision  dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5 of the Court of $ppeals in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+, affir-in. with -odification the + /arch 1000 Decision  of the (e.ional Trial Court 1(TC2, 3ranch "1, of Santia.o Cit!, Isa ela, in Civil Case No' "1%"414' The petition likewise seeks to annul the (esolution  dated 15 /a! "##5 den!in. petitioners6 -otion for reconsideration' The factual antecedents were s!nthesi7ed ! the Court of $ppeals in its decision' &re.orio 3alacano, -arried to 8oren7a Su-i.ca!, was the re.istered owner of 8ot 1155%E and 8ot 1155%F of the Su d' 9lan 9sd%4+#*" :located at 3aluarte, Santia.o Cit!, Isa ela; covered ! TCT No' T%1#4"05 and TCT No' T%1#4"0+ of the (e.istr! of Deeds of the 9rovince of Isa ela' &re.orio and 8oren7a had three children, na-el!< Do-in.o, Catalino and $lfredo, all surna-ed 3alacano' 8oren7a died on Dece- er 11, 1001' &re.orio, on the other hand, died on =ul! "+, 100)' 9rior to his death, &re.orio was ad-itted at the Veterans &eneral >ospital in 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a on =une "+, 100) and sta!ed there until =ul! 10, 100)' >e was transferred in the afternoon of =ul! 10, 100) to the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit! where he was confined until his death' &re.orio purportedl! sold on =ul! "", 100), or arel! a week prior to his death, a portion of 8ot 1155%E 1specificall! consistin. of 15,0"5 s@uare -eters fro- its total area of "",4*1 s@uare -eters2 and the whole 8ot 1155%F to the Spouses (ud! 1A(ud!B2 and Cora7on 9ara.as 1collectivel!, Athe Spouses 9ara.asB2 for the total consideration of 95##,###'##' This sale appeared in a deed of a solute sale notari7ed ! $tt!' $leCander V' de &u7-an, Notar! 9u lic for Santia.o Cit!, on the sa-e date D =ul! "", 100) D and witnessed ! $ntonio $.caoili 1A$ntonioB2 and =ulia &ara iles 1A=uliaB2' &re.orio6s certificates of title over 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were conse@uentl! cancelled and new certificates of title were issued in favor of the Spouses 9ara.as' The Spouses 9ara.as then sold on Octo er 15, 100) a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. of ),*1) s@uare -eters to Catalino for the total consideration of9)#,###'##' Do-in.o6s children 1Do-inic, (odolfo, Nanette and C!ric, all surna-ed 3alacanoEF2 filed on Octo er "", 100) a co-plaint for annul-ent of sale and partition a.ainst Catalino and the Spouses 9ara.as' The! essentiall! alle.ed D in askin. for the nullification of the deed of sale D that< 112 their
as' The! interposed a counterclai. the! alle. who was then +1 !ears old. Nueva Vi7ca!a on =ul! 1+.orio6s -edical records and his death certificate' .orio and the Spouses 9ara. their $nswer. 100)E 1"2 thereafter. 100) and not =ul! "". den!in.es' Instead of filin. &re.orio6s -edical condition. a portion of ). -indE 1*2 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were &re.orio and the partition of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' The! likewise asked for da-a.orio D the! clai-ed that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F for.ed eCecution of the deed of sale.al partnership properties of &re.orio6s -arital statusE 152 the entire area of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were sold to the Spouses 9ara. &re. 100) ecause she sta!ed at the hospital the whole of that da! and saw no visitors' She likewise testified on their a.orio on =ul! 10 1or 1+2. was transferred in the afternoon of =ul! 10. &re.o6s children failed to alle. ti-eE 1"2 an indispensa le part! is not i-pleaded D that &re. at that ti-e.orio was seriousl! ill' Do-in.orio. inti-idation.on.ations of their co-plaint' On &re.orio died' She clai-ed that &re. in fact d!in. weak and sick.orio could not have appeared efore the notar! pu lic on =ul! "". who ! then was weak and could no lon.ed that the sale to the Spouses 9ara.es' $t the trial. 100)E 1"2 the Notar! 9u lic personall! went to the >ospital in 3a!o. 100) and sta!ed there until the afternoon on =ul! 10.randfather &re.orio6s other son.part of the conGu.rand-other 8oren7a who predeceased &re. undue influence or fraud. &re.ned the deed. to dispose' The! asked for the nullification of the deed of sale eCecuted ! &re.ation eCpenses the! incurred' $dditionall!.round for the annul-ent of the deed of saleE the! did not cite an! -istake.e a ..ed that &re.*1) s@uare -eters that Catalino is threatenin. althou.o6s children cannot file the case ecause Do-in. he was stron.orio to si.al capacit! % the Do-in.orio was of sound and disposin.ht to the hospital in 3a!o. $lfredo was not -ade a part! to the suitE and 142 the co-plaint states no cause of action D that Do-in. was rou. and of sound and disposin. the defendants Catalino and the Spouses 9ara.o Cit! ecause he was then confined at the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit!E 1"2 at the ti-e of the alle. ut directed the plaintiffs%appellees to a-end the co-plaint to include $lfredo as a part!' $lfredo was su se@uentl! declared as in default for his failure to file his $nswer to the Co-plaint' The defendants%appellees filed their $nswer with Counterclai.as covers onl! a 5%hectare portion of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F leavin. 100) to notari7e the deed of sale alread! su Gect of a previousl! concluded covenant etween &re.s to their . the plaintiffs%appellees presented in evidence &re.asE 142 at the ti-e &re.h he has een a sent for a lon.orio and 8oren7a' Finall!.ned a deed of sale on =ul! 10. 1005. violence.ations of the co-plaint' $dditionall!.for da-a. Nueva Vi7ca!a on =une "+. ut -erel! alle. ...on. the -aterial alle. -ind.orio si. the! alle. she declared that< 112 &re.orio.er talk and whose condition had worsened. which vitiated his consent to the disposal of the propert!E and 142 Catalino -anipulated the eCecution of the deed and prevailed upon the d!in.n his na-e on a paper the contents of which he never understood ecause of his serious condition' $lternativel!.ree-ent for attorne!6s fees with their counsel and the liti.orio was seriousl! ill.orio6s separate capital and the inscription of 8oren7a6s na-e in the titles was Gust a description of &re.rounds< 112 the plaintiffs have no le. the parties proceeded to prove their respective contentions' 9laintiff%appellant Nanette 3alacano testified to prove the -aterial alle.o6s children opposed this -otion' The lower court denied the -otion to dis-iss. 100) at Santia.o is still alive. 100) to the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit! where &re. the! clai-ed that< 112 the deed of sale was actuall! eCecuted ! &re.ed that assu-in.orio could not have si.on /a! 5. he could onl! transfer a half portion of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F as the other half elon.as -oved to dis-iss the co-plaint on the followin.
Nueva Vi7ca!a.###'## in the hospital ecause (ud! had previousl! paid &re.! the Spouses 9ara.orio and the Spouses 9ara.Defendants%appellees. the -one! fro. the defendants%appellants presented in evidence the pictures taken ! $ntonio when &re.orio.orio 3alacano in favor of the spouses (ud! 9ara.###'##. &re.salda testified to prove that 8ot 1155%E was &re.orio6s father 18eon2 purchased a two%hectare lot fro.as 95#.caoili is not credi le while $tt!' $leCander De &u7-an is not relia le'  The lower court found the eCplanations of $tt!' De &u7-an re.as and Cora7on 9ara.ularit!E 1"2 as a private docu-ent.ardin.as to prove the deed of sale6s due eCecution ut failed to do so D the lower court said that witness $ntonio $.6s pre-ises -a! e su--ari7ed as follows< 112 the deed of sale was i-properl! notari7edE thus it cannot e considered a pu lic docu-ent that is usuall! accorded the presu-ption of re. (ule 14" of the (evised (ules on Evidence either< 1a2 ! an!one who saw the docu-ent eCecuted or writtenE or 1 2 ! evidence of the . not as consideration for the return of the land ut for the transfer of the title to his na-e' $dditionall!.her nei. after trial.ot up fro. (ud! paid &re.o Cit!2 of the deed of sale ecause the deed is -erel! a confir-ation of a previousl! a. of ). Nueva Vi7ca!a D where &re. the deed of sale eCecuted ! &re.orio6s separate propert!' She clai-ed that &re.the ed with =ulia6s help' Hitness for defendants%appellants 8uisa $.o Cit! as the place of eCecution of the deed' >e descri ed &re.orio had previousl! asked hi.orio si.*1) s@uare -eters was sold to hi.###'## consideration in the deed.orio inherited these lands fro.nin.orio6s rothers6 share in the inheritance' Defendant%appellant Catalino also testified to corro orate the testi-on! of witness 8uisa $.orio as still stron.his father 8eonE she does not know.saldaE he said that &re.orio was confined D with (ud!E 1"2 $tt!' De &u7-an read and eCplained the contents of the deed to &re.reed contract etween &re. &re.orioE 142 &re. on the other hand. 100).(ud!E 1*2 =ulia and $ntonio si.ree-ent etween the Spouses 9ara.thein 105" while the other lot was purchased fro. which appeared to have een eCecuted on =ul! "".ister onl! on =ul! "".orio6s eCecution of the sale and the circu-stances under the deed was eCecuted' The! unifor-l! declared that< 112 on =ul! 1+.nedE nor did he re-e. the deed' >e also clai-ed that there was no entr! on the date when he si. the deed of sale null and void and this reasonin.er readin. $ntonio added that he was asked ! (ud! to take pictures of &re. was actuall! eCecuted on =ul! 1+.orio si.to prepare a deed that &re. presented as witnesses Notar! 9u lic de &u7-an and instru-ental witness $ntonio to prove &re.ned on =ul! 1+.on.ned the deed'  The lower court.ned the deed as witnesses' $dditionall!.as' >e likewise stated that of the stated 95##. the lower court initiall! noted that at the ti-e &re.. of the -akerE and 142 it was incu. in fact.on.. however. instead of Santia.orio told hi. the deed of sale6s due eCecution -ust e proved in accordance with Section "#. $tt!' De &u7-an eCplained that the eCecution of the deed was -erel! a confir-ation of a previous a. 100)' >e also eCplained that the deed.orio 9*5#.orio alle.edl! si.as and that he will pa! the Spouses 9ara.that he 1&re.orio eCecuted the deed.ned the deed after receivin.ent upon the Spouses 9ara. rendered the decision declarin. ut sickl!.orio6s deathE that. null and void the deed of sale purportedl! eCecuted ! &re.h or' She also declared that &re.as and &re. 100). Santia. the! went to the hospital in 3a!o.his father 8eon' >e also stated that a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. 100)E he notari7ed the deed and entered it in his re.orio 95#.orio was ill' The lower court6s reasonin.orio2 inherited 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F fro. the erroneous entries on the actual place and date of eCecution of the deed of sale as Gustifications for a lie' The lower court said D .enuineness of the si.orio that was concluded at least a -onth prior to &re. who . in declarin. &re.as' In nullif!in.###'##' For his part.nature or handwritin. 100)' >e clai-ed that he did not find it necessar! to state the precise date and place of eCecution 13a!o.orio eventuall! si.
'  The lower court also did not consider $ntonio $. of the -inds etween &re. and 1"2 was he 1(ud!2 afraid to ad-it that he did not actuall! pa! the 95##. 3ranch "1.###'## indicated in the deed of sale as the price of the landI  The lower court also ruled that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were &re. wh! did he not take the picture of $tt!' De &u7-an when the latter was readin.orio 3alacano alone holdin. the dispositive portion of which reads as follows< H>E(EFO(E in the li. to the conGu.(go.orio 3alacano in favor of the spouses (ud! 9ara. not stupid.as did not testif! a out the si.ht to the hospital on =une "+. on + /arch 1000. and eCplainin.e is presu-ed to elon.orio6s and 8oren7a6s conGu.6ousn(ss o4 56s 6))n(ss.###'##' The intention to sell is not actual sellin. the docu-ent ein. a picture of &re.istered in the na-e &re. witness. that he has no authorit! to notari7e a docu-ent in that province' The onl! lo. a law!er and ! all -eans.nin.Gust to take pictures of the si.otiated with Catalino 3alacano.ht the deed of sale to hi. considerations Gud.nin.orio 3alacanoI Hh! did he not take the picture of oth &re. a convincin. the (TC.orio 3alacano and (ud! 9ara.nature of &re.ical thin.ned and re@uested hi.as and -oreover.as. the sale.caoili. (ud! 9ara.h ti-e elapsed to the ti-e he was rou.I If the purpose was to record the proceedin.oin. that he was tellin. 1.6o !a)a3ano 8ou)d 0( n(got6at6ng a 3ont.e the circu-stances of how he o tained the si.orio 3alacano would have i--ediatel! returned to the office of $tt!' De &u7-an to eCecute the deed of sale' >e did not until he was rou. the -arria. 100) alread! si. ?ue7on Cit!' Of course had he known. not knowin.orio.as . such as< 112 was he 1(ud!2 afraid to divul.as ne. si.' Fro. that at that ti-e the vendor was alread! in a hospital and :sic.to notari7e the sa-e which he did.as' In addition :sic.o Cit!. Thus.orio 3alacano and $tt!' de &u7-an while the old -an was si. of the deed of sale' To the lower court. the docu-ent instead of takin.on =ul! "". A-arried to 8oren7a Su-i.ine an attorne! to undertake to travel to another province to notari7e a docu-ent when he -ust certainl! know. a all pen without even showin. for posterit!. (ud! 9ara.The Court cannot i-a.that 3alacano received an advance of 95#.as to tell a concocted stor! which he hi-self would not dare tell in Court under oath'  The lower court likewise noted that petitioner (ud! 9ara.orio 3alacano with who. &re. that happened was that (ud! 9ara. surel! &re.al partnership properties' The lower court found that these lots were ac@uired durin. to $tt!' De &u7-an.caoili -ust have onl! een asked ! (ud! 9ara. the -arria. enou.orio 3alacano infor-ed hi.orio 3alacano alread! infor-ed hipreviousl! in =une that he will sell his lands to 9ara.as also told hi.-ent is here ! rendered< 1' DEC8$(IN& as NJ88 and VOID the deed of sale purportedl! eCecuted ! &re.ht of the fore. 6t 6s not (7/(3t(d t5at G. (ud!6s refusal or failure to testif! raises a lot of @uestions.e ecause the certificates of title of these lots clearl! stated that the lots are re. Isa ela.the latter was sta!in. accordin. petitioner (ud! 9ara. &re.as rou.al partnership full! applies to 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' [:] Thus. of Santia.as re. concludin. rendered a Decision in Civil Case No' "1%"414. ein.ht to the hospital and dia.ca!'B Thus.ht a ca-era with hi.that he will sell his land to (ud! 9ara. a rehearsed stor!' The lower court said D The onl! portion of his testi-on! that is true is that he si.nin.nosed to have liver cirrhosis' !(3aus( o4 t5( s(.orio 3alacano.as and Cora7on 9ara.2 was o-itted.the first week of =une when.nedI Veril! there is a picture of a docu-ent ut onl! a hand with a all pen is shown with it' Hh!I Clearl! the driver $ntonio $. the lower court concluded that the presu-ption of law 1under $rticle 1)# of the Civil Code of the 9hilippines2 that propert! ac@uired durin.ned the docu-ent' >ow could the Court elieve that he rou.as6s driver.ardin. the docu-ent to &re. $tt!' De &u7-an would not have notari7ed the docu-ent' 3ut he trusted (ud! 9ara. the son of &re. 100)' >ad there een a -eetin.a3t o4 sa)(.
n the followin.orio 3alacano' 8et a cop! of this Decision e furnished the Office of the 3ar Confidant for whatever action her Office -a! take a. the Court of $ppeals affir-ed the Decision of the trial court. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION. pre-ises considered. with the -odification that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were adGud. SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN FINDIN& T>$T T>E(E H$S NO 9E(FECTED $ND 9$(TI$88K ELECJTED CONT($CT OF S$8E OVE( 8OTS 1155%E $ND 1155%F 9(IO( TO T>E SI&NIN& OF T>E DEED OF S$8E' 3' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S.ed as elon. SE(IOJS8K F$I8ED TO $99(ECI$TE T>E SI&NIFIC$NCE OF T>E =JDICI$8 $D/ISSION ON T>E $JT>ENTICITK $ND DJE ELECJTION OF T>E DEED OF S$8E /$DE 3K T>E (ES9ONDENTS DJ(IN& T>E 9(E%T(I$8 CONFE(ENCE' C' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S.as ! virtue of the deed of saleE and DEC8$(IN& the parcel of lands. errors to the Court of $ppeals. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION. the appeal is here ! DIS/ISSED' He $FFI(/ the appealed Decision for the reasons discussed a ove. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION.ainst $tt!' De &u7-an' 1E-phasis in the ori.over lots 1155%E and 1155%F covered ! TCT Nos' T%1#4"05 and T%1#4"0+. SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN NOT (J8IN& ON T>E ISSJE OF (ES9ONDENTS6 8$CM OF 8E&$8 C$9$CITK TO SJE FO( NOT 3EIN& T>E 9(O9E( 9$(TIES IN INTE(EST' E' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S.s and conclusions of the trial court on the nullit! of the Deed of Sale purportedl! eCecuted etween petitioners and the late &re. 3$SED ITS CONC8JSION T>$T &(E&O(IO6S CONSENT TO T>E S$8E OF T>E 8OTS H$S $3SENT /E(E8K ON S9ECJ8$TIONS $ND SJ(/ISES' D' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S.orio 3alacano and 8oren7a 3alacano'  In the assailed Decision dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION.orio 3alacano' The appellate court disposed as follows< H>E(EFO(E. to the estate of &re. the findin. lots 1155%E and 1155%F as part of the estate of the deceased spouses &re. SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN DIS/ISSIN& $TTK' $8EL$NDE( DE &JN/$N $ND $NTONIO $&C$OI8I $S NOT C(EDI38E HITNESSES' $t otto. this appeal via a petition for review where petitioners assi.is the issue of whether or not the Court of $ppeals co--itted reversi le error in upholdin.in. to the estate of &re.orio 3alacano' . viz< $' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION.inal'2 >erein petitioners6 -otion for reconsideration was -et with si-ilar lack of success when it was denied for lack of -erit ! the Court of $ppeals in its (esolution  dated 15 /a! "##5' >ence. respectivel!E "' O(DE(IN& the cancellation of TCT Nos' T%"5+#*" and T%"5+#*1 issued in the na-e of the spouses (ud! and Cora7on 9ara. with the /ODIFIC$TION that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F elon.
we have to rel! on oral testi-onies.reed sale of the lots.as alread! a.reed consideration in the sale of the lots. tenets in the case at ar appl! with . &re.as on the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' This testi-on! does not conclusivel! esta lish the -eetin. of the deed of sale. priv! to the parties6 a.orio ca-e to his fir-6s office in the -ornin.oin.ree-ent.  and carr! even -ore wei.ned the deed at the hospital' In line with this position.reater force to the petition under consideration ecause the factual findin. which are supported ! su stantial evidence.nin. found that there was no prior and perfected contract of sale that re-ained to e full! consu--ated' The appellate court eCplained % In support of their position.orio asked hi.ue that the eCecution or si.as a. &re.ht of the evidence supportin. well% entrenched is the prevailin. irre. the trial court.reed to a 95##. which in this case is that of $tt!' de &u7-an whose testi-on! on the alle. the defendants%appellants ar.ree-ent with that of the trial court' Specificall!.orio and the Spouses 9ara. Gurisprudence that onl! errors of law and not of facts are reviewa le ! this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under (ule *5 of the (evised (ules of Court' The fore. does not affect the validit! of the previousl! a. as the eCecution or si.nin. final and conclusive upon the Supre-e Court.or an! other written instru-ent evidencin.to prepare a deed.orio ca-e' Hith re.ue that at least a -onth prior to &re.orio of 95#.orio6s consent to the sale should e deter-ined.1$tt!' de &u7-an2 to prepare a deed of sale of two lotsE 1"2 &re.orio6s si.reed to sell the propert! in =une 100) or a -onth prior to the deed6s si. it is not its function to eCa-ine and deter-ine the wei. 3alacano.ht when the said court affir-s the factual findin. of the deed. of the -inds etween &re.ular it -i.orio and the Spouses 9ara. however.orio confir-ed his intentionE 1*2 &re. leavin.ard to the alle. the alle.orio was of sound and disposin.orio and (ud! left the law office at 5<## p'-'. &re.ree-ent' To us.. in affir-in.s ! the Court of $ppeals are in full a. (ud! could have een a co-petent witness to testif! on the perfection of this prior contractE unfortunatel!.reed on the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%FE and that.To start.nin. in fact. then returned in the afternoon with (ud!E 142 he 1$tt!' de &u7-an2 asked &re.###'## efore &re.as on the price or consideration for the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F D $tt!' de &u7-an -erel! declared that he was asked ! &re. the assailed decision' Factual findin. not ein.orio whether he reall! intends to sell the lotsE &re.s of the trial court' /oreover.ht have een. -e-orandu.reed oral contract' ''' In the a sence of an! note.orio and the Spouses 9ara.E and in =une 100).nin. with a certain Do-in. the defendants%appellants did not present (ud! as their witness' .###'## consideration ased on $tt!' de &u7-an6s are assertion that &re.ree-ent etween &re.ree-ent -a! e su--ari7ed as follows< 112 that so-eti-e in the first week of =une 100). 100). as $tt!' de &u7-an was not personall! aware of the a.ed oral a.ed perfected contract of sale. $tt!' de &u7-an said that he was told ! (ud! that there was alread! a partial pa!-ent of 95#. the Court of $ppeals. not at the ti-e &re. ut at the ti-e when he a. we held in Blanco v. the certificates of titleE 152 he prepared the deed a da! after (ud! and &re. of the deed is -erel! a for-ali7ation of a previousl! a. Quasha that this Court is not a trier of facts' $s such.orio and the Spouses 9ara.ree-ent was partiall! eCecuted ! (ud!6s pa!-ent to &re.s of the Court of $ppeals. defendants% appellants posit that &re.orio si.orio to prepare a deedE he did not clearl! narrate the details of this a.ed partial eCecution of this a.orio si.orio re@uested hi. -ind and his consent to the sale was in no wise vitiated at that ti-e' The defendants%appellants further ar. this a.ree-ent' He cannot assu-e that &re. are indin.ned the deed of sale on =ul! 1+.###'##' He do not consider $tt!' de &u7-an6s testi-on! sufficient evidence to esta lish the fact that there was a prior a.
has no pro ative value' $tt!' de &u7-an -erel! stated that (ud! told hi.ht to the Veteran6s >ospital at ?ue7on Cit! ecause his condition had worsened on or a out the ti-e the deed was alle. we seriousl! dou t whether &re.e on account of his -oral dependence. speaks volu-e a out the re.###'## to &re. and the circu-stances under which this falsit! was co--itted. which is hearsa! and thus.es of his attle a.ave95#. 100) at 3a!o.ned' This transfer and fact of death not lon.ned the deed of saleI The trial court as well as the appellate court found in the ne.ned on =ul! 1+.orio6s death was neither sudden nor i--ediateE he fou. there is no conclusive proof of the partial eCecution of the contract ecause the onl! evidence the plaintiffs%appellants presented to prove this clai.ainst the disease until he succu. the entries in his acknowled. respectivel!' To us. the last sta.. after speak volu-es a out &re.ilant for his protection'  3ased on the fore.o Cit!' Hh! such falsit! was co--itted.orio purportedl! eCecuted a deed durin.on.orio was seriousl! ill.nificance of the act of notari7ation.orio6s consent to the sale of the lots was a sent.ularit! and the validit! of the sale' He cannot ut consider the co--ission of this falsit!.orio si.norance. the courts -ust e vi. upon hinor on his ount!' $rticle "* of the Civil Code tells us that in all contractual.on.o Cit! and =ul! "". 100) at Santia.e or other handicap. &re.ainst his disease.oin.. tender a. seriousl! affects his credi ilit! as a witness in the present case' In fact.was $tt!' de &u7-an6s testi-on!.edl! si.ularit! of the transaction itself' Hhile the deed was indeed si. as it shows that the deed was eCecuted on =ul! "".ative' In the Court of $ppeals6 rationale% It is not disputed that when &re. as place and date of eCecution.ent consent to the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F when he si..' &re. Nueva Vi7ca!a.orio was rou.orio died of co-plications caused ! cirrhosis of the liver' &re. the spouses 9ara. attle a. the irre.that (ud! alread! .orio did not intend to e indin. -akin. in utter disre.He seriousl! dou t too the credi ilit! of $tt!' de &u7-an as a witness' He cannot rel! on his testi-on! ecause of his tendenc! to co--it falsit!' >e ad-itted in open court that while &re.ive an intelli.ard that &re. did &re. indi.ht at least a -onth%lon.orio efore he affiCed his si.nin. 100)' &iven that &re.orio could have read. $tt!' de &u7-an6s propensit! to distort facts in the perfor-ance of his pu lic functions as a notar! pu lic. when one of the parties is at a disadvanta. $tt!' de &u7-an6s act in falsif!in. a -atter that we however do not here decide' Si-ilarl!. the Court of $ppeals concluded that &re. 100). propert! or other relations. i.orio as partial pa!-ent of the purchase priceE $tt!' de &u7-an did not personall! see the pa!-ent ein. the deed states otherwise.-ent of the deed of sale could e the su Gect of ad-inistrative and disciplinar! action.orio . we full! concur with the heretofore%@uoted lower court6s evaluation of the testi-onies . the contents of the docu-ents he si. with the indispensa le aid of $tt!' de &u7-an. 100) at 3a!o.orio si. as he in fact died a week after the deed6s si.iven ! $tt!' de &u7-an and $ntonio ecause this is an evaluation that the lower court was in a etter position to -ake' $dditionall!. an orchestrated atte-pt to le.ed to death on =ul! "". -ental weakness. the contract null and void' Conse@uentl!.ned the deed of sale.ned the deed on =ul! 1+.ence. Nueva Vi7ca!a.iti-i7e a transaction that &re.orio6s condition at that ti-e' He likewise see no conclusive evidence that the contents of the deed were sufficientl! eCplained to &re. we do not find $tt!' de &u7-an a credi le witness' Thus.ned or of the conse@uences of his act' He note in this re. -ade'  3ut. or full! understood.nature' The evidence the defendants%appellants offered to prove &re.orio6s consent to the sale consists of the testi-onies of $tt!' de &u7-an and $ntonio' $s discussed a ove.as could .ular and invalid notari7ation of the deed is a falsit! that raises dou ts on the re.ard of the si. he nevertheless did not reflect these -atters when he notari7ed the deedE instead he entered Santia.
eneral rule is that a person is not inco-petent to contract -erel! ecause of advanced !ears or ! reason of ph!sical infir-ities' >owever. respondents6 clai. the trial court had the uni@ue opportunit! of o servin.#OR. of the Court of $ppeals declarin. to the du iet! of the purported sale and further olsterin.orio6s ac@uisition of ownership of these lots' On the credi ilit! of witnesses.enarian at the ti-e of the alle.e or infir-ities have i-paired the -ental faculties so as to prevent the person fro.ein.edl! eCecuted on =anuar! "+.ed eCecution of the contract and sufferin. we a. intelli.decision ased on the whole evidence in record holdin.###'##' One need not stretch his i-a.o shows that at the ti-e of the alle.R. $tt!' De &u7-an is far fro.entl!. fro.ree in the trial court6s conclusion that petitioners6 star witness. was alread! of advanced a. 10))' The . Court of Appeals. petitioners sold a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. the properties in controvers! as paraphernal properties of &re.". and ehavior while testif!in.the -outh of a credi le witness ut -ust itself e credi le. arel! over a !ear when the deed was alle. and conclusion on the -atter< ' ' ' In the case at ar.hts then she is undenia l! incapacitated' The unre utted testi-on! of Nosi-a Do-in.ree-ent with the trial court6s findin. one of the children of the decedent.s of facts and assess-ent of credi ilit! of witness are -atters est left to the trial court who had the front%line opportunit! to personall! evaluate the witnesses6 de-eanor.' In the case at ar. we find no reversi le error on the part of the appellate court in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+ that would warrant the reversal thereof'  . the Deed of Sale in @uestion to e null and void' In Domingo v. 9aulina was alread! incapacitated ph!sicall! and -entall!' She narrated that 9aulina pla!ed with her waste and urinated in ed' &iven these circu-stances.orio on his death ed in the hospital' &re.ned ! &re. nemo dat quod non habet.ed contract. her propert! ri. well%entrenched rules< 112 that evidence to e elieved -ust not onl! sprin.ination to sur-ise that Catalino was in cahoots with petitioners in -aneuverin. we are in a.orio in the a sence of co-petent evidence on the eCact date of &re. the alle.ed sale' On the whole. at the ti-e of the eCecution of the alle.e and senile' He held D ' ' ' She died an octo. conduct. there is no receipt to show that said price was paid to and received ! her' Thus. when such a.that their uncle Catalino. No od! can dispose of that which does not elon.*1) s@uare -eters to Catalino for 9)#.the trial court and the Court of $ppeals6 unifor. and 1"2 findin. dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5 and 15 /a! "##5. the Decision and the  (esolution..not have -ade a su se@uent transfer of the propert! to Catalino 3alacano' Indeed.enarian on /arch "#. ut efore copies of the deed were entered in the re. we are . of ). had a hand in the eCecution of the deed is the fact that on 15 Octo er 100). we affir. there is in our view sufficient reason to seriousl! dou t that she consented to the sale of and the price for her parcels of land' /oreover. the Court declared as null and void the deed of sale therein inas-uch as the seller.properl!.edl! si. the de-eanor of said witness' Thus.rave dou ts on his ph!sical and -ental capacit! to freel! consent to the contract' $ddin.l!.orio was an octo. it is in rh!-e with reason to elieve the testi-onies of the witnesses for the co-plainants vis-à-vis those of the defendants' In the assess-ent of the credi ilit! of witnesses. a credi le witness' Jnlike this Court. the Deed of Sale was alle.edl! on /a! 1) and =une 1#.liver cirrhosis at that D circu-stances which raise . respectivel!. to hi-' [1:] He likewise find to e in accord with the evidence on record the rulin. fro.istr! alle.ed eCecution of the deed. the present petition is here ! DENIED' $ccordin. and fir-l! protectin.uided ! the followin. 10)5. 10)). of the Court of $ppeals in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+ are here ! $FFI(/ED' No costs' .
Puno !Chairman" Austria-#artinez Calle$o %r. .SO ORD.D.R. concur. and &inga ''.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.