[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))'(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 [1] dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5 of the Court of $ppeals in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+, affir-in. with -odification the + /arch 1000 Decision [2] 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 [3] 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!, 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 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' The Spouses 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' The! essentiall! alle.ed D in askin. for the nullification of the deed of sale D that< 112 their

orio.round for the annul-ent of the deed of saleE the! did not cite an! capacit! % the Do-in.ed that &re.*1) s@uare -eters that Catalino is threatenin. she declared that< 112 &re. the -aterial alle. and of sound and disposin. -indE 1*2 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were &re..orio D the! clai-ed that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F for.orio si.on /a! 5. the defendants Catalino and the Spouses 9ara.orio and the partition of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' The! likewise asked for' The! interposed a counterclai. he was stron. 100) at Santia.orio to si.orio was of sound and disposin.ed that assu-in.rand-other 8oren7a who predeceased &re. -ind. he could onl! transfer a half portion of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F as the other half elon. at that ti-e. weak and sick.ed that the sale to the Spouses 9ara. inti-idation.orio6s -edical records and his death certificate' . the plaintiffs%appellees presented in evidence &re. den!in. a portion of ). . 100)E 1"2 thereafter. &re.orio could not have appeared efore the notar! pu lic on =ul! "". 100) to the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit! where &re.randfather &re.orio could not have si. ti-eE 1"2 an indispensa le part! is not i-pleaded D that &re.ed eCecution of the deed of sale. the parties proceeded to prove their respective contentions' 9laintiff%appellant Nanette 3alacano testified to prove the -aterial alle.for da-a.h he has een a sent for a lon.asE 142 at the ti-e &re. &re. &re.n his na-e on a paper the contents of which he never understood ecause of his serious condition' $lternativel!.orio6s -arital statusE 152 the entire area of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were sold to the Spouses 9ara.ation eCpenses the! incurred' $dditionall!. 100)E 1"2 the Notar! 9u lic personall! went to the >ospital in 3a!o.orio on =ul! 10 1or 1+2.ree-ent for attorne!6s fees with their counsel and the liti. in fact d!in.o6s children failed to' Instead of filin.part of the conGu.o6s children cannot file the case ecause Do-in..orio6s other son. $lfredo was not -ade a part! to the suitE and 142 the co-plaint states no cause of action D that Do-in. 100) and sta!ed there until the afternoon on =ul! 10.orio6s -edical condition.ations of their co-plaint' On &re. 1005.rounds< 112 the plaintiffs have no le.s to their . who ! then was weak and could no' $t the trial. Nueva Vi7ca!a on =ul! 1+..on.ned the deed. &re.ned a deed of sale on =ul! 10. 100) ecause she sta!ed at the hospital the whole of that da! and saw no visitors' She likewise testified on their a.orio died' She clai-ed that &re.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.o is still alive.ations of the co-plaint' $dditionall!.o6s children opposed this -otion' The lower court denied the -otion to -oved to dis-iss the co-plaint on the followin. Nueva Vi7ca!a on =une "+. was transferred in the afternoon of =ul! 10.orio6s separate capital and the inscription of 8oren7a6s na-e in the titles was Gust a description of &re.on. the! alle. the! alle.e a .er talk and whose condition had worsened. 100) to notari7e the deed of sale alread! su Gect of a previousl! concluded covenant etween & to the hospital in 3a!o. their $nswer.orio and 8oren7a' Finall!.orio. 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. ut -erel! alle.orio was seriousl! ill. 100) and not =ul! "".orio and the Spouses 9ara. the! clai-ed that< 112 the deed of sale was actuall! eCecuted ! &re.orio was seriousl! ill' partnership properties of &re. undue influence or fraud. 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. was rou. who was then +1 !ears old. to dispose' The! asked for the nullification of the deed of sale eCecuted ! &re. covers onl! a 5%hectare portion of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F leavin. violence.

orio.saldaE he said that &re.ardin.ned the deed as witnesses' $dditionall!.orio 9*5#.orio had previousl! asked hi.ned on =ul! 1+.his father 8eon' >e also stated that a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. presented as witnesses Notar! 9u lic de &u7-an and instru-ental witness $ntonio to prove &re.that he 1&re. the! went to the hospital in 3a!o..orio si. &re.orio si.orio 95#.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.his father 8eonE she does not know.orio eCecuted the deed.nature or handwritin.caoili is not credi le while $tt!' $leCander De &u7-an is not relia le' [5] The lower court found the eCplanations of $tt!' De &u7-an re.orio inherited these lands fro. the deed of sale6s due eCecution -ust e proved in accordance with Section "#. ut sickl!.orio alle. in declarin. 100)' >e also eCplained that the deed. Nueva Vi7ca!a.###'## consideration in the deed.orio6s deathE that.orio6s separate propert!' She clai-ed that &re.###'##.###'##' For his part. &re.orio was ill' The lower court6s reasonin. null and void the deed of sale purportedl! eCecuted ! & prepare a deed that &re.orio2 inherited 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F fro.orio6s rothers6 share in the inheritance' Defendant%appellant Catalino also testified to corro orate the testi-on! of witness 8uisa $. 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 .ister onl! on =ul! "". who .nedE nor did he re-e.*1) s@uare -eters was sold to hi.edl!' In nullif!in. not as consideration for the return of the land ut for the transfer of the title to his na-e' $dditionall!. the defendants%appellants presented in evidence the pictures taken ! $ntonio when &re. 100).her nei. after trial. 100)' >e clai-ed that he did not find it necessar! to state the precise date and place of eCecution 13a!o.orio 3alacano in favor of the spouses (ud! 9ara. which appeared to have een eCecuted on =ul! "". the deed of sale eCecuted ! &re. of ).as and &re.orio and the Spouses and that he will pa! the Spouses 9ara.reed contract etween &re. Nueva Vi7ca!a D where &re.orio6s father 18eon2 purchased a two%hectare lot fro. the deed of sale null and void and this reasonin.o Cit!2 of the deed of sale ecause the deed is -erel! a confir-ation of a previousl! a.ent upon the Spouses 9ara. instead of Santia.orio was confined D with (ud!E 1"2 $tt!' De &u7-an read and eCplained the contents of the deed to &re. in fact.ree-ent etween the Spouses 9ara. on the other hand.ot up fro.! the Spouses 9ara.the ed with =ulia6s help' Hitness for defendants%appellants 8uisa $.as' >e likewise stated that of the stated 95##. was actuall! eCecuted on =ul! 1+. 100). $tt!' De &u7-an eCplained that the eCecution of the deed was -erel! a confir-ation of a previous a. 100)E he notari7ed the deed and entered it in his re.h or' She also declared that &re. $ntonio added that he was asked ! (ud! to take pictures of &re. (ud! paid &re.orio told hi. of the -akerE and 142 it was incu.ularit!E 1"2 as a private docu-ent.Defendants%appellees.o Cit! as the place of eCecution of the deed' >e descri ed &re.###'## in the hospital ecause (ud! had previousl! paid &re. the -one! fro..orio eventuall! si.orio that was concluded at least a -onth prior to &re. the deed' >e also clai-ed that there was no entr! on the date when he si. the lower court initiall! noted that at the ti-e &re.ned the deed' [2] The lower court.nin.on. rendered the decision 95#.enuineness of the si.on.salda testified to prove that 8ot 1155%E was & and Cora7on 9ara.orio6s eCecution of the sale and the circu-stances under the deed was eCecuted' The! unifor-l! declared that< 112 on =ul! 1+. Santia.orioE 142 &re.(ud!E 1*2 =ulia and $ntonio si. &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 .as to prove the deed of sale6s due eCecution ut failed to do so D the lower court said that witness $ntonio $.er readin.orio as still stron.ned the deed after receivin. however.thein 105" while the other lot was purchased fro.

a picture of &re. a rehearsed stor!' The lower court said D The onl! portion of his testi-on! that is true is that he si. Isa ela. the (TC.that 3alacano received an advance of to tell a concocted stor! which he hi-self would not dare tell in Court under oath' [9] The lower court likewise noted that petitioner (ud! 9ara. a law!er and ! all -eans. such as< 112 was he 1(ud!2 afraid to divul.a3t o4 sa)(. A-arried to 8oren7a Su-i.2 was o-itted.orio 3alacano. 3ranch "1.orio 3alacano and $tt!' de &u7-an while the old -an was si.e ecause the certificates of title of these lots clearl! stated that the lots are partnership properties' The lower court found that these lots were ac@uired durin. a all pen without even showin. to the conGu.###'##' The intention to sell is not actual sellin. that happened was that (ud!!'B notari7e the sa-e which he did.The Court cannot i-a.ned the docu-ent' >ow could the Court elieve that he rou.on =ul! "". to $tt!' De &u7-an. (ud! 9ara. witness. $tt!' De &u7-an would not have notari7ed the docu-ent' 3ut he trusted (ud! 9ara. on + /arch 1000. the docu-ent to &re. concludin.ical thin.istered in the na-e &re. ein.nature of & and Cora7on 9ara. the -arria.nin.o Cit!. for posterit!.the latter was sta!in.h ti-e elapsed to the ti-e he was rou. si.###'## indicated in the deed of sale as the price of the landI [8] The lower court also ruled that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were &re. that he has no authorit! to notari7e a docu-ent in that province' The onl! re. 100) alread! to the hospital and dia.orio.orio 3alacano in favor of the spouses (ud! 9ara. the deed of sale to hi. the docu-ent ein. the docu-ent instead of takin.Gust to take pictures of the si.e is presu-ed to elon. wh! did he not take the picture of $tt!' De &u7-an when the latter was readin. &re.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 $. Thus. of the deed of sale' To the lower court.nin.orio 3alacano and (ud! 9ara. (ud! 9ara. the son of & rou. rendered a Decision[10] in Civil Case No' "1%"414. enou. 6t 6s not (7/(3t(d t5at .' [6] The lower court also did not consider $ntonio $. and eCplainin. surel! &re. the ne.orio6s and 8oren7a6s conGu. of Santia.caoili -ust have onl! een asked ! (ud! 9ara. the dispositive portion of which reads as follows< H>E(EFO(E in the did not testif! a out the si.orio 3alacano infor-ed a ca-era with hi.otiated with Catalino 3alacano.as6s driver.orio 3alacano would have i--ediatel! returned to the office of $tt!' De &u7-an to eCecute the deed of sale' >e did not until he was rou.6ousn(ss o4 56s 6))n( also told hi. petitioner (ud! 9ara. of the -inds etween &re. considerations Gud.-ent is here ! rendered< 1' DEC8$(IN& as NJ88 and VOID the deed of sale purportedl! eCecuted ! &re.ned and re@uested hi. not knowin. accordin. 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. &re. 100)' >ad there een a -eetin. and 1"2 was he 1(ud!2 afraid to ad-it that he did not actuall! pa! the 95##. not stupid.oin.that he will sell his land to (ud! 9ara. a convincin.ine an attorne! to undertake to travel to another province to notari7e a docu-ent when he -ust certainl! and -oreover.' Fro.orio 3alacano alread! infor-ed hipreviousl! in =une that he will sell his lands to 9ara.(' In addition to the hospital on =une " partnership full! applies to 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' [:] Thus. that he was tellin.orio 3alacanoI Hh! did he not take the picture of oth &re.orio 3alacano with who.caoili.e the circu-stances of how he o tained the si. that at that ti-e the vendor was alread! in a hospital and :sic.I If the purpose was to record the proceedin.nosed to have liver cirrhosis' !(3aus( o4 t5( s(.6o !a)a3ano 8ou)d 0( n(got6at6ng a 3ont. the -arria.orio 3alacano alone holdin. ?ue7on Cit!' Of course had he known. (ud!6s refusal or failure to testif! raises a lot of @uestions.the first week of =une of the fore.

orio 3alacano' . with the -odification that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were adGud. to the estate of &re. the appeal is here ! DIS/ISSED' He $FFI(/ the appealed Decision for the reasons discussed a ove. pre-ises considered. this appeal via a petition for review where petitioners assi.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 [13] dated 15 /a! "##5' > the issue of whether or not the Court of $ppeals co--itted reversi le error in upholdin. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION. SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN NOT (J8IN& ON T>E ISSJE OF (ES9ONDENTS6 8$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$8S. the ! virtue of the deed of saleE and DEC8$(IN& the parcel of lands. 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$8S. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION. SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN FINDIN& T>$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$8S. respectivel!E "' O(DE(IN& the cancellation of TCT Nos' T%"5+#*" and T%"5+#*1 issued in the na-e of the spouses (ud! and Cora7on 9ara. with the /ODIFIC$TION that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F elon.orio 3alacano and 8oren7a 3alacano' [11] In the assailed Decision dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5. to the estate of &re. SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN DIS/ISSIN& $TTK' $8EL$NDE( DE &JN/$N $ND $NTONIO $&C$OI8I $S NOT C(EDI38E HITNESSES'[12] $t otto. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION.orio 3alacano' 8et a cop! of this Decision e furnished the Office of the 3ar Confidant for whatever action her Office -a! take a. lots 1155%E and 1155%F as part of the estate of the deceased spouses &re. the Court of $ppeals affir-ed the Decision of the trial court. 3$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$8S.n the followin. HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION.ainst $tt!' De &u7-an'[12] 1E-phasis in the ori.orio 3alacano' The appellate court disposed as follows< H>E(EFO(E.over lots 1155%E and 1155%F covered ! TCT Nos' T%1#4"05 and T%1#4"0+.ed as elon.s and conclusions of the trial court on the nullit! of the Deed of Sale purportedl! eCecuted etween petitioners and the late &re. errors to the Court of $ viz< $' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S.

orio of 95#. final and conclusive upon the Supre-e Court.orio was of sound and alread! a.To start. 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. of the deed is -erel! a for-ali7ation of a previousl! a.ed partial eCecution of this a. 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 on the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' This testi-on! does not conclusivel! esta lish the -eetin.###'## consideration ased on $tt!' de &u7-an6s are assertion that & prepare a deed.ree-ent' He cannot assu-e that &re. [16] and carr! even -ore wei. ut at the ti-e when he a.oin. -e-orandu. the certificates of titleE 152 he prepared the deed a da! after (ud! and &re. does not affect the validit! of the previousl! a.orio ca-e to his fir-6s office in the -ornin.ue that the eCecution or si.ed oral a.orio ca-e' Hith re.reed oral contract' ''' In the a sence of an! note.reed consideration in the sale of the lots.orio and (ud! left the law office at 5<## p'-'. irre. the defendants%appellants ar. the assailed decision' Factual findin.1$tt!' de &u7-an2 to prepare a deed of sale of two lotsE 1"2 &re. defendants% appellants posit that &re. with a certain Do-in.orio and the Spouses have een. the trial court. it is not its function to eCa-ine and deter-ine the wei. Quasha[15] that this Court is not a trier of facts' $s such.nin.###'##' He do not consider $tt!' de &u7-an6s testi-on! sufficient evidence to esta lish the fact that there was a prior a. the Court of $ppeals. not ein. however.###'## efore &re.orio si.orio asked hi. the alle. this a. which in this case is that of $tt!' de &u7-an whose testi-on! on the alle. as the eCecution or si. priv! to the parties6 a. &re.ard to the alle. in affir-in. -ind and his consent to the sale was in no wise vitiated at that ti-e' The defendants%appellants further 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.ree-ent -a! e su--ari7ed as follows< 112 that so-eti-e in the first week of =une 100).E and in =une 100).ree-ent.ue that at least a -onth prior to &re.reed to a 95##. &re. which are supported ! su stantial evidence.ree-ent' To us. as $tt!' de &u7-an was not personall! aware of the a. leavin.reed to sell the propert! in =une 100) or a -onth prior to the deed6s si.ree-ent with that of the trial court' Specificall!.reed on the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%FE and that. we held in Blanco v.orio whether he reall! intends to sell the lotsE &re.orio re@uested hi.orio6s consent to the sale should e of the evidence supportin. tenets in the case at ar appl! with ..ree-ent etween &re. in fact.orio confir-ed his intentionE 1*2 &re.ular it -i.reater force to the petition under consideration ecause the factual findin. of the deed of sale.s ! the Court of $ppeals are in full a.orio6s si. well% entrenched is the prevailin.s of the trial court' /oreover.orio a. we have to rel! on oral testi-onies. 3alacano. of the -inds etween & when the said court affir-s the factual findin.orio to prepare a deedE he did not clearl! narrate the details of this a. then returned in the afternoon with (ud!E 142 he 1$tt!' de &u7-an2 asked &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara. not at the ti-e &re.or an! other written instru-ent evidencin.orio and the Spouses 9ara.orio and the Spouses 9ara. 100).ed perfected contract of sale.nin. &re.ree-ent was partiall! eCecuted ! (ud!6s pa!-ent to &re. (ud! could have een a co-petent witness to testif! on the perfection of this prior contractE unfortunatel!. are indin.ned the deed at the hospital' In line with this position. the defendants%appellants did not present (ud! as their witness' .nin.reed sale of the lots.s of the Court of $ppeals. $tt!' de &u7-an said that he was told ! (ud! that there was alread! a partial pa!-ent of 95#. of the deed.ned the deed of sale on =ul! 1+.

ned the deed of saleI The trial court as well as the appellate court found in the ne. an orchestrated atte-pt to le. we do not find $tt!' de &u7-an a credi le witness' Thus. indi.ainst the disease until he succu.ence.. &re. in utter disre.edl! si.that (ud! alread! .e or other handicap.###'## to &re.ed to death on =ul! "". upon hinor on his ount!' $rticle "* of the Civil Code tells us that in all contractual. -akin. 100). the deed states otherwise.orio si. the courts -ust e vi. we full! concur with the heretofore%@uoted lower court6s evaluation of the testi-onies .o Cit!' Hh! such falsit! was co--itted.nin.was $tt!' de &u7-an6s testi-on!.ave95#.orio .ned the deed of sale.ard that &re.ive an intelli.. has no pro ative value' $tt!' de &u7-an -erel! stated that (ud! told hi.orio as partial pa!-ent of the purchase priceE $tt!' de &u7-an did not personall! see the pa!-ent ein.ned' This transfer and fact of death not lon.e on account of his -oral dependence.orio efore he affiCed his si. as place and date of eCecution. 100) at 3a!o. 100)' &iven that &re. seriousl! affects his credi ilit! as a witness in the present case' In fact.iti-i7e a transaction that &re.ned the deed on =ul! 1+. as it shows that the deed was eCecuted on =ul! "". respectivel!' To us.ned or of the conse@uences of his act' He note in this re. the last sta.orio6s condition at that ti-e' He likewise see no conclusive evidence that the contents of the deed were sufficientl! eCplained to &re.orio6s consent to the sale consists of the testi-onies of $tt!' de &u7-an and $ntonio' $s discussed a ove. when one of the parties is at a disadvanta.oin. the contract null and void' Conse@uentl!.as could . and the circu-stances under which this falsit! was co--itted. -ade' [19] 3ut. the entries in his acknowled. Nueva Vi7ca!a.ent consent to the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F when he si.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. the Court of $ppeals concluded that & at least a -onth%lon. the irre.-ent of the deed of sale could e the su Gect of ad-inistrative and disciplinar! action.ainst his disease.orio was seriousl! ill. the contents of the docu-ents he si. he nevertheless did not reflect these -atters when he notari7ed the deedE instead he entered Santia.. propert! or other relations.iven ! $tt!' de &u7-an and $ntonio ecause this is an evaluation that the lower court was in a etter position to -ake' $dditionall!.norance. 100) at Santia.orio6s consent to the sale of the lots was a sent. speaks volu-e a out the re. $tt!' de &u7-an6s propensit! to distort facts in the perfor-ance of his pu lic functions as a notar! pu lic.ilant for his protection' [18] 3ased on the fore. did &re. $tt!' de &u7-an6s act in falsif!in.orio si.orio6s death was neither sudden nor i--ediateE he fou.on.o Cit! and =ul! "".on. there is no conclusive proof of the partial eCecution of the contract ecause the onl! evidence the plaintiffs%appellants presented to prove this clai. attle a.nature' The evidence the defendants%appellants offered to prove &re.ular and invalid notari7ation of the deed is a falsit! that raises dou ts on the re.ative' In the Court of $ppeals6 rationale% It is not disputed that when &re. after speak volu-es a out &re. 100) at 3a! of his attle a.nificance of the act of notari7ation. tender a. -ental weakness.orio died of co-plications caused ! cirrhosis of the liver' &re.orio purportedl! eCecuted a deed durin.ularit! and the validit! of the sale' He cannot ut consider the co--ission of this falsit!. as he in fact died a week after the deed6s to the Veteran6s >ospital at ?ue7on Cit! ecause his condition had worsened on or a out the ti-e the deed was alle. a -atter that we however do not here decide' Si-ilarl!. which is hearsa! and thus. we seriousl! dou t whether &re. i.ularit! of the transaction itself' Hhile the deed was indeed si.orio could have read.' &re. or full! understood.ard of the si.orio was rou. Nueva Vi7ca!a. with the indispensa le aid of $tt!' de &u7-an.ned on =ul! 1+. the spouses 9ara.orio did not intend to e indin.

the Deed of Sale in @uestion to e null and void' In Domingo v.ination to sur-ise that Catalino was in cahoots with petitioners in -aneuverin.not have -ade a su se@uent transfer of the propert! to Catalino 3alacano' Indeed. the present petition is here ! DENIED' $ccordin.ed contract. was alread! of advanced a.entl!. the properties in controvers! as paraphernal properties of &re.o shows that at the ti-e of the alle. Court of Appeals.the -outh of a credi le witness ut -ust itself e credi le.l!. $tt!' De &u7-an is far fro. dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5 and 15 /a! "##5. the alle.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.".decision ased on the whole evidence in record holdin.[21] the Court declared as null and void the deed of sale therein inas-uch as the seller. and conclusion on the -atter< ' ' ' In the case at ar.ed eCecution of the contract and sufferin. when such a.edl! eCecuted on =anuar! "+.ed eCecution of the deed. petitioners sold a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin.hts then she is undenia l! incapacitated' The unre utted testi-on! of Nosi-a Do-in.#OR. the de-eanor of said witness' Thus. to hi-' [1:] He likewise find to e in accord with the evidence on record the rulin. fro. had a hand in the eCecution of the deed is the fact that on 15 Octo er 100). we affir. nemo dat quod non habet. one of the children of the decedent.that their uncle Catalino.ein. there is no receipt to show that said price was paid to and received ! her' Thus. and 1"2 findin.ree-ent with the trial court6s findin. 10)).e or infir-ities have i-paired the -ental faculties so as to prevent the person fro. of the Court of $ppeals declarin. to the du iet! of the purported sale and further olsterin. at the ti-e of the eCecution of the alle.orio was an octo.*1) s@uare -eters to Catalino for 9)#.edl! si. 10)5. we are .properl!.enarian at the ti-e of the alle.orio on his death ed in the hospital' &re.the trial court and the Court of $ppeals6 unifor. we find no reversi le error on the part of the appellate court in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+ that would warrant the reversal thereof' [23] .enarian on /arch "#.ed sale' On the whole. a credi le witness' Jnlike this Court. arel! over a !ear when the deed was alle.orio in the a sence of co-petent evidence on the eCact date of &re. and fir-l! protectin. No od! can dispose of that which does not elon.###'##'[22] One need not stretch his i-a. well%entrenched rules< 112 that evidence to e elieved -ust not onl! sprin. conduct. 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. we a.'[20] In the case at ar. and ehavior while testif!in.edl! on /a! 1) and =une 1#.rave dou ts on his ph!sical and -ental capacit! to freel! consent to the contract' $ddin.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.uided ! the followin.R. fro..istr! alle. 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. of ). respondents6 clai.liver cirrhosis at that D circu-stances which raise . the Decision and the [24] (esolution. her propert! ri. ut efore copies of the deed were entered in the re.ree in the trial court6s conclusion that petitioners6 star witness. the Deed of Sale was alle.orio6s ac@uisition of ownership of these lots' On the credi ilit! of witnesses.ned ! &re. 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. intelli.e and senile' He held D ' ' ' She died an octo. we are in a. the trial court had the uni@ue opportunit! of o servin. of the Court of $ppeals in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+ are here ! $FFI(/ED' No costs' . respectivel!. 10))' The .

concur.SO ORD. and &inga ''. .R.D. Puno !Chairman" Austria-#artinez Calle$o %r.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.