The dispute involves a parcel of land in Manila that was sold by Cesar Morelos to his niece Laura Morelos Bautista through a Deed of Absolute Sale. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate son, contested the sale's validity. The trial court upheld the deed's validity but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that notarial documents like deeds are presumed valid unless proven otherwise, and no evidence of fraud, mistake, or undue influence was presented to invalidate the deed's consent. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the deed valid.
The dispute involves a parcel of land in Manila that was sold by Cesar Morelos to his niece Laura Morelos Bautista through a Deed of Absolute Sale. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate son, contested the sale's validity. The trial court upheld the deed's validity but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that notarial documents like deeds are presumed valid unless proven otherwise, and no evidence of fraud, mistake, or undue influence was presented to invalidate the deed's consent. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the deed valid.
The dispute involves a parcel of land in Manila that was sold by Cesar Morelos to his niece Laura Morelos Bautista through a Deed of Absolute Sale. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate son, contested the sale's validity. The trial court upheld the deed's validity but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that notarial documents like deeds are presumed valid unless proven otherwise, and no evidence of fraud, mistake, or undue influence was presented to invalidate the deed's consent. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the deed valid.
The dispute involves a parcel of land in Manila that was sold by Cesar Morelos to his niece Laura Morelos Bautista through a Deed of Absolute Sale. Fernando Morelos, claiming to be Cesar's illegitimate son, contested the sale's validity. The trial court upheld the deed's validity but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court ruled that notarial documents like deeds are presumed valid unless proven otherwise, and no evidence of fraud, mistake, or undue influence was presented to invalidate the deed's consent. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and declared the deed valid.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
[G.R. No. 158015.
August 11, 2004]
LAURA and ERIBERTO BAUTISTA, petitioner, vs. HON. COURT OF
APPEALS and FERNANDO MORELOS, respondents. FACTS: The dispute involves a parcel of land situated along Maceda (formerly Washington) Street, Sampaloc, Manila. The dispute involves a parcel of land situated along Maceda (formerly Washington) Street, Sampaloc, Manila. Cesar is the uncle of petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista. Cesar died of cardiac arrest on April 15, 1982. During his lifetime, Cesar sold and conveyed the above-mentioned parcel of land in favor of petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista, as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale. Respondent Fernando Morelos, claiming to be the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos with Angelina Lim-Gue, instituted a complaint for the declaration of nullity of sale and title. At the trial, he presented testimonies of expert witnesses who claimed that the signature of Cesar Morelos on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint appearing on his Residence Certificate were not his. Trial court rendered judgment declaring the deed of sale valid but CA reversed, hence this petition. ISSUE: Whether or not the deed of sale is valid RULING: A notarial document is evidence of the facts in the clear unequivocal manner therein expressed and has in its favor the presumption of regularity. The authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale must therefore be upheld. As to the alleged insufficient consideration of the sale of the property, the mere inadequacy of the price does not affect its validity when both parties are in a position to form an independent judgment concerning the transaction, unless fraud, mistake or undue influence indicative of a defect in consent is present. A contract may consequently be annulled on the ground of vitiated consent and not due to the inadequacy of the price. In the case at bar, however, no evidence to prove fraud, mistake or undue influence indicative of vitiated consent was presented other than the respondents self-serving allegations.
