When Is a Land Sale "Conveyed" for Repurchase? Notarial Deed Prevails

In a dispute over a parcel of land in Davao del Norte, the Supreme Court settled a recurring question: when a deed of sale shows two dates—one when the parties signed and another when it was notarized—which one counts as the date of conveyance for purposes of computing the five-year period to repurchase land under the Public Land Act? The Court's ruling in Spouses Alfarero v. Spouses Sevilla (G.R. No. 142974, September 22, 2003) reaffirms the evidentiary weight of notarized documents and clarifies the procedural rules on motions for new trial.

The Facts of the Case

The respondents, Spouses Petra and Sancho Sevilla, were registered owners of a 14.038-hectare parcel of land in San Vicente, Panabo, Davao del Norte. On May 25, 1986, they sold a one-hectare portion to the petitioners for P12,000.00 through a Deed of Sale notarized before Notary Public Jose B. Banzon. The deed was registered, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-49928 was issued in the petitioners' names.

The title bore an inscription stating that the property was subject to the rights of repurchase by the original patentee or his heirs within a period of five years from the date of conveyance, pursuant to Section 119 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended.

In October 1986, Petra Sevilla allegedly sent a letter expressing the desire to repurchase the property, but the petitioners objected. On January 3, 1991, the Sevillas filed an action for repurchase.

The Petitioners' Defense: Prescription

The petitioners raised the affirmative defense of prescription. They claimed the Deed of Sale was actually executed in December 1985, although notarized only on May 26, 1986. Counting from December 1985 to January 3, 1991, they argued, the five-year period had already lapsed.

However, at pre-trial, the petitioners themselves moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the motion and ruled in favor of the Sevillas, allowing them to repurchase the property. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Issue: Which Date Controls?

The petitioners presented a Deed of Sale that read "__th day of December 1985"—with the day left blank—and the document was not notarized. The Sevillas presented the notarized Deed of Sale dated May 25, 1986.

The Supreme Court held that the notarized deed prevails. Under Section 119 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141), every conveyance of land acquired under free patent or homestead provisions is subject to repurchase by the applicant, widow, or legal heirs within five years from the date of conveyance.

The Court applied the long-standing rule that a public document executed and attested through the intervention of a notary public is evidence of the facts clearly expressed therein. Notarial documents may be presented in evidence without further proof, as the certificate of acknowledgment is prima facie evidence of execution. To contradict the presumption of regularity of a public document, evidence must be clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant—evidence that was wanting in this case.

The Court also noted that the petitioners, by moving for judgment on the pleadings, omitted to present evidence establishing that the sale took place in December 1985. They were estopped from insisting on appeal that the appellate court erred in finding no evidence for their allegation.

The Second Issue: Motion for New Trial

The petitioners also argued that newly discovered evidence—showing that the actual purchase price was P45,000.00, not P12,000.00—warranted a new trial. However, the Court found this issue moot and academic.

Under Rule 37, Section 1 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, a motion for new trial must be filed within the period for taking an appeal. The petitioners only asked for a new trial after the Court of Appeals had rendered its decision—a situation clearly not permissible under the Rules. Moreover, the issue was not raised in the trial court, and questions not brought to the attention of the lower court will not be considered on appeal.

Practical Takeaways

• The notarized date controls. When a deed of sale is notarized, the date of notarization is generally treated as the date of conveyance for computing statutory periods, unless contradicted by clear and convincing evidence.
• Notarized documents carry strong evidentiary weight. A public document acknowledged before a notary is prima facie evidence of its execution and contents. To challenge it, a party must present evidence that is clear, convincing, and more than merely preponderant.
• Affirmative defenses require proof. A party raising prescription as an affirmative defense bears the burden of proving it. Moving for judgment on the pleadings without presenting evidence can forfeit that claim.
• Motions for new trial have strict deadlines. A motion for new trial based on newly discovered evidence must be filed within the period for taking an appeal—not after the appellate court has already ruled.
• Raise issues at the trial court level. Legal theories and arguments not presented to the lower court will generally not be considered on appeal.

This article is general information and not legal advice. For your specific situation, consult a lawyer or ask ASG Legal AI.