RIOSA v. Tabaco

AQUILES RIOSA, Petitioner,
vs.
TABACO LA SUERTE CORPORATION, Respondent.
The Facts
Petitioner Aquiles Riosa (Aquiles) filed his Complaint for
Annulment/Declaration of Nullity of Deed of Absolute
Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title, Reconveyance
and Damages against respondent Tabaco La Suerte
Corporation (La Suerte) before the RTC.
In his complaint, Aquiles alleged that he was the owner
and in actual possession of a commercial lot situated in
Tabaco City, Albay; that subsequently, on three (3)
occasions, he obtained loans from Sia Ko Pio in the
total amount of P50,000.00; that as a security for the
payment of loans, Sia Ko Pio requested from him a
photocopy of the deed of cession and
quitclaim(through which he acquired the prop from
parents); that Sia Ko Pio presented to him a document
purportedly a receipt for the P50,000.00 loan with an
undertaking to pay the total amount of P52,000.00
including the P2,000.00 attorneys fees; that without
reading the document, he affixed his signature
thereon; and that in September 2001, to his surprise, he
received a letter from La Suerte informing him that
the subject lot was already registered in its name.
Aquiles claimed that by means of fraud,

misrepresentation and deceit employed by Sia Ko Pio, he
was made to sign the document which he thought was a
receipt and undertaking to pay the loan, only to find out
later that it was a document of sale. Aquiles averred
that he did not appear before the notary public to
acknowledge the sale, and that the notary public, a
municipal judge, was not authorized to notarize a
deed of conveyance. He, thus, prayed for the
nullification of the deed of sale and certificate of title in
the name of La Suerte and the reconveyance of the
subject property to him.4
the RTC ruled in favor of Aquiles.
With its motion for reconsideration denied, La Suerte
appealed to the CA. CA reversed the RTC decision and
upheld the validity of the subject deed of sale in favor of
La Suerte. It declared La Suerte as the lawful owner of
the subject lot and improvements thereon, subject to the
right of reimbursement for the renovation expenses. The
CA held that tax declarations or realty tax payments by
Aquiles were not conclusive evidence of ownership.
Aquiles filed his Motion for Reconsideration 9 of the CA
decision, but the same was denied by the CA. Hence,
Aquiles filed the present petition before this Court raising
the following
The primordial issue to be resolved is whether there was

a perfected and valid contract of sale for the subject
property between Aquiles and La Suerte, through its
Chief Executive Officer, Sia Ko Pio.
Aquiles argues that there was no perfected contract to
sell because ( (4) he did not appear before the notary
public for notarization of the instrument of sale. Moreover,
there was a discrepancy in the date appearing in the
deed of sale and the date in the acknowledgment and the
notarial reference.
La Suerte, counters that the notarized deed of sale was
the very evidence of the agreement between them.
According to it, said deed of sale was binding and
enforceable between them, albeit there was a
discrepancy in the dates, for the time-honored rule is that
even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces
legal effect between the parties.
The Courts Ruling
The Court agrees with the finding of the RTC that there
was no perfected contract of sale. The CA also failed to
consider the glaring material discrepancies on the dates
appearing in the purported deed of absolute sale
notarized by Judge Arsenio Base, Municipal Court
Presiding Judge of Tabaco City (Judge Base).
The document was dated 1999, but the date in the

acknowledgment and notarial reference was an
earlier date, 1990. The ex-oficio notary public, Judge
Base, was not presented to explain the apparent material
discrepancy of the dates appearing on the questioned
document. This only confirms the claim of Aquiles that he
signed the receipt representing his loan at the bodega of
Sia Ko Pio sometime in 1990, and not at the office of
Judge Base in 1999.
La Suerte insists that the discrepancy on the dates was a
mere clerical error that did not invalidate the deed of sale.
It is worthy to stress that a notarial document is
evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner
therein expressed and has in its favor the
presumption of regularity. While it is true that an error
in the notarial inscription does not generally invalidate a
sale, if indeed it took place, the same error can only
mean that the document cannot be treated as a notarial
document and thus, not entitled to the presumption of
regularity. The document would be taken out of the realm
of public documents whose genuineness and due
execution need not be proved.23
An even more substantial irregularity raised by Aquiles
pertains to the capacity of the notary public, Judge Base,
to notarize the deed of sale. Judge Base, who acted
as ex-oficio notary public, is not allowed under the
law to notarize documents not connected with the
exercise of his official duties. The case of Tigno v.

Aquino24 is enlightening:
signed such an instrument and never appeared before a

notary public.
(Can perform functions of regular notary public if there is

a lack of such notary in the municipality/circuit) There are
possible grounds for leniency in connection with this
matter, as Supreme Court Circular No. I-90 permits
notaries public ex officio to perform any act within the
competency of a regular notary public provided that
certification be made in the notarized documents
attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in
such municipality or circuit. Indeed, it is only when
there are no lawyers or notaries public that the exception
applies. In this case, no such certification was
attached to the alleged notarized document. Also, the
Court takes note of Aquiles averment that there were
several lawyers commissioned as notary public in
Tabaco City. With Judge Base not being authorized to
notarize a deed of conveyance, the notarized document
cannot be considered a valid registrable document in
favor of La Suerte.
Although it is true that the absence of notarization of

the deed of sale would not invalidate the transaction
evidenced therein,26 yet an irregular notarization
reduces the evidentiary value of a document to that
of a private : document, which requires proof of its
due execution and authenticity to be admissible as
evidence.27
Moreover, Aquiles wife, Erlinda, who appeared to have

affixed her signature as a witness to the purported
document of sale, categorically stated that she never
It should be noted that the deed of sale was offered in

evidence as authentic by La Suerte, hence, the burden
was upon it to prove its authenticity and due execution.
La Suerte unfortunately failed to discharge this
burden. Accordingly, the preponderance of evidence
is in favor of Aquiles.
The R TC was correct in ordering its annulment.
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED.

RIOSA v. Tabaco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIOSA v. Tabaco

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RIOSA v. Tabaco

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AQUILES RIOSA, Petitioner,

Aquiles claimed that by means of fraud,

The primordial issue to be resolved is whether there was

The document was dated 1999, but the date in the

exercise of his official duties. The case of Tigno v.

signed such an instrument and never appeared before a

(Can perform functions of regular notary public if there is

Although it is true that the absence of notarization of

Moreover, Aquiles wife, Erlinda, who appeared to have

It should be noted that the deed of sale was offered in

You might also like