Questioning Authenticity When A Deed Of Sale Fails The Test Of Due Execution

The deed of absolute sale is often treated as the definitive proof of a property transfer. But what happens when the deed itself is questionable — a carbon copy with erasures, a witness who retracts, and a seller who may not have understood what she was signing? In Domingo v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 127540, October 17, 2001), the Supreme Court laid down clear guidance on when a deed of sale fails the test of due execution and may be declared void.

The Dispute Over Paulina Rigonan's Properties

Paulina Rigonan allegedly sold three parcels of land, including a house and warehouse, to spouses Felipe and Concepcion Rigonan for P850. The deed of absolute sale was dated January 28, 1965. When Paulina died in 1966, her relatives — Eugenio Domingo, Crispin Mangabat, and Samuel Capalungan — took possession of the properties, claiming they were her closest surviving kin and had inherited the land.

Felipe Rigonan filed a complaint for reinvindicacion (recovery of ownership and possession) in 1976. The trial court ruled in favor of the relatives, declaring the deed "fake" and void. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decision.

The Issue: Was the Deed Duly Executed?

The central question was whether the private respondents sufficiently established the existence and due execution of the deed of sale. The burden of proof lay on them as plaintiffs. The Court found they failed to discharge this burden.

Why the Deed Failed the Test

Several irregularities doomed the deed. First, only a carbon copy was presented — no typewritten original existed. The carbon copy contained filled-in blanks and alterations. Second, one of the instrumental witnesses, Juan Franco, retracted his testimony and said the deed was not the document he signed. Another witness, Efren Sibucao, was never presented, and his affidavit was withdrawn.

The notary public, Atty. Tagatag, testified that he prepared the deed and registered the original with the Register of Deeds. Yet the original was nowhere to be found. The carbon copy on file showed intercalations, and different copies bore different entry dates and numbers. The deed was registered only after Paulina's death.

The Court also noted that Paulina was never given a copy of the deed, was never asked to vacate the property she purportedly sold, and the same lots were included in her last will and testament executed shortly after the alleged sale. These circumstances, taken together, cast serious doubt on the deed's genuineness.

Consideration and Capacity Matter

The Court found the P850 price for nine parcels of land, a house, and a warehouse grossly inadequate. Unrebutted testimony showed Paulina was financially well off and even loaned money to others. There was no receipt proving the price was paid.

More importantly, testimony showed Paulina was already senile and physically incapacitated at the time of the alleged execution. She played with her waste and urinated in bed. While advanced age alone does not make a person incompetent to contract, when mental faculties are impaired such that the person cannot intelligently protect her property rights, she is incapacitated.

Practical Takeaways

• The burden of proof is on the party asserting ownership through a deed. They must prove both the deed's existence and its due execution.
• A carbon copy or duplicate original is not automatically acceptable. If the original is unavailable, expect scrutiny — especially if the copy shows erasures, intercalations, or discrepancies.
• Witness retractions are significant. If an instrumental witness disowns the deed, the remaining evidence must be strong and corroborated.
• Grossly inadequate consideration raises red flags. Courts will question a sale where the price is shockingly low and no receipt of payment exists.
• Mental capacity at the time of execution is critical. A thumbmark on a deed means little if the seller was senile or otherwise incapacitated.

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