Upholding Notarized Deeds: The Strength of Public Documents in Philippine Property Disputes

The Supreme Court recently reaffirmed a fundamental rule in Philippine property law: a notarized deed of sale enjoys the presumption of regularity, and anyone who challenges it must present clear and convincing evidence to overcome that presumption. In Spouses Lopez v. Spouses Potoy (G.R. No. 250846, January 5, 2022), the Court denied a petition seeking to quiet title over a parcel of land in Ormoc City, ruling that the petitioners failed to overturn the validity of a notarized deed executed in 1969.

The case illustrates how courts treat notarized documents in property disputes and what it takes to challenge them successfully.

The Facts of the Case

The petitioners, Spouses Ronico and Marcelina Lopez and Spouses Gloria Lopez Adorza and Nicomedes Adorza, filed a Complaint for Quieting of Title and Damages over an 80,000-square-meter parcel of land in Barrio Nueva Vista, Ormoc City, registered under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 28487. The property was originally part of Lot No. 9194, registered in the name of Ronico and Gloria's parents, Severino and Esperanza Lopez, under TCT No. 2556, measuring 261,425 square meters.

The petitioners denied executing any deed of conveyance over the subject property. The respondents, on the other hand, claimed that Severino and Esperanza sold a two-hectare portion to Agustin Potoy, as evidenced by a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale executed in the local dialect. Agustin later filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, which was inscribed on TCT No. 2556. However, this adverse claim was canceled when TCT No. 2556 was replaced by TCT No. 20066 issued to subsequent purchasers.

The RTC and CA Decisions

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, finding that the respondents failed to prove their claim. The RTC noted that the respondents did not present evidence of their relationship to the deceased Agustin, failed to identify which specific portion was sold, and doubted the validity of the sale because the notary public himself expressed uncertainty about the identity and capacities of the parties.

The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision. The CA held that the notarized Deed of Absolute Sale was a public document that enjoyed the presumption of regularity, and the petitioners failed to overturn this presumption with clear and convincing evidence. The CA also gave weight to the notary public's testimony that he personally knew the parties and that each signed the document in his presence.

The Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court affirmed the CA's decision, denying the petition. The Court emphasized that a notarized instrument has in its favor the presumption of regularity. To overcome this presumption, there must be clear and convincing evidence. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.

The Court noted that the notary public, Demosthenes Tugonon, testified that Esperanza Lopez and her children—Ronico, Catalina, and Gloria—together with Agustin, went to his office in 1969 for the execution and notarization of the deed of sale. He personally knew the Lopezes from Barangay Buena Vista because of a religious organization they founded, and he confirmed that the parties personally appeared before him and signed the deed in his presence.

The Court also highlighted that the testimony of a notary public, being an officer of the court, enjoys greater credence than that of an ordinary witness, especially when the latter's testimony consists of nothing more than mere denials. The petitioners did not allege forgery, and aside from Gloria's bare denial, they presented no other evidence to prove their claim. Gloria's allegation of minority at the time of execution was also unsupported by competent evidence.

Significantly, the Court noted that the respondents had been in undisputed possession of the property since 1969. Had the petitioners truly owned the property, they would have asserted their rights much earlier.

The Burden of Proof in Challenging Notarized Documents

The Court reiterated an important rule: one who denies the due execution of a deed where his or her signature appears has the burden of proving that, contrary to the recital in the acknowledgment, he or she neither appeared before the notary public nor acknowledged the deed to be a voluntary act. A mere denial, without more, is insufficient.

Practical Takeaways

• A notarized deed of sale is a public document that enjoys the presumption of regularity. This means courts will presume it was validly executed unless proven otherwise.

• To challenge a notarized document, the party contesting it must present clear and convincing evidence. Bare denials or unsubstantiated claims of minority or incapacity will not suffice.

• The testimony of the notary public carries significant weight. As an officer of the court, a notary's testimony is given greater credence than that of an ordinary witness.

• In property disputes, long and undisturbed possession by one party can serve as strong evidence that a sale indeed took place.

• Anyone who denies signing a deed should consider alleging forgery and presenting expert evidence to support the claim, as a general denial without supporting proof is unlikely to overcome the presumption of regularity.

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