AGUINALDO V. TORRES JR.

839 SCRA 354

1356-1358 – Form of Contract

FACTS: Titles of the subject property were transferred to the respondents were improperly notarized because it was signed by
respondents in Makati and by petitioners in the USA, but notarized in Cavite which is a violation of the proper procedures required by
law.

ISSUE: WON the deed of sale was valid for being improperly notarized.

RULING: YES, it is valid. The improper notarization of the 1991 deed of sale stripped it of its public character and reduced it to a
private instrument. However, the improper notarization of 1991 deed of sale did not affect the validity of the sale of the subject
properties to respondent. The same, however, rendered the said deed unregistrable, since notarization is essential to the registrability of
deeds and conveyances. The legal requirement that the sale of real property must appear in a public instrument is merely a coercive
means granted to the contracting parties to enable them to reciprocally compel the observance of the prescribed form

Atty. Alabastro’s Discussion:

Certain documents must be in a public instrument not only for the convenience of parties but also in order that it may affect third
persons. In this case, the fact that the deed of sale was not properly notarized can preclude its registration in the Registry of Property by
the fact that government agencies will not know whether or not that contract of sale is indeed genuine. The Registry of Property will first
need to look at the form in order to know it is notarized. It is only when such deed is notarized that the registry of property will be able to
ascertain its genuineness. The Supreme Court, in this case, invoked Art. 1357 and Art. 1358 only in order that the necessary formalities
will be observed between the parties to facilitate the registrability of the property.