Zenaida Tigno vs. Sps. Aquino G.R.

129416 , November 25,2 4

!A"TS# The controversy in the present petition hinges on the admissibility of a single document, a deed of sale involving interest over real property, notarized by a person of questionable capacity. The facts alleged are as follows: Spouses Aquino wanted the enforcement of a deed of sale executed by r. !ustria for a fishpond located in "angasinan. #ollowing this, a compromise agreement approved by the $#% of "angasinan was made. &owever, on '()* r. !ustria died and was then represented by his daughter +enaida Tigno. +enaida wanted that the right of repurchase be exercised by her through consignation but the same was denied by the ,T$. eanwhile Spouese Aquino alleged that the right to repurchase was already sold to them by r. !ustria in '()-. They presented two witnesses r. .e #rancia , who was the witness in the execution of the deed of sale, and former /udge $arino who notarized the same. +enaida Tigno ob0ected to the admission of the deed of sale saying that it was not ac1nowledged by !ustria, her father, and that it was previously un1nown and was not even presented during the Spouses Aquino2s opposition to her consignation. ,T$ ruled for +enaida saying that !ustria did not ac1nowledge it nor was it done through the assistance of a counsel. ,T$ also said that there were inconsistencies in the statements of the witnesses presented by Spouses Aquino. The $A issued a different ruling with the ,T$. The $A stated that there were no substantial inconsistencies with the statements of the witnesses .e #rancia and /udge $arino. Also, that the absence of ac1nowledgment and substitution instead of a 0urat did not ma1e the instrument doubtful. 3ven the absence of counsel2s representation did not render the same as void. %t was noted that a notarized document carried in its favor the presumption of regularity with respect to its due execution, and that there must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence to contradict the same. $SS%&# 4hether or not former /udge $arino has the capacity to notarize the alleged document in this present case '&()# The notarial certification of the .eed of Sale reads as follows:

A$567483.9 36T ,3":!8%$ 7# T&3 "&%8%""%63S; ",7<%6$3 7# "A69AS%6A6 ; S.S. :6%$%"A8%T= 7# A8A %67S ; S:!S$,%!3. A6. S47,6 T7 before me this '>th day of 7ctober '()- at Alaminos, "angasinan both parties 1nown to me to be the same parties who executed the foregoing instrument.

#,A658%6 $A,%?7 3x@7fficio 6otary "ublic /udge, .T.$. Alaminos, "angasinan There are palpable errors in this certification. ost glaringly, the document is certified by way of a 0urat instead of an ac1nowledgment. A 0urat is a distinct creature from an ac1nowledgment. An ac1nowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deedA while a 0urat is that part of an affidavit where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before him. BA notary ex officioC should not compete with private law practitioners or regular notaries in transacting legal conveyancing business. %n the instant case, it was not proper that a city 0udge should notarize documents involving private transactions and sign the document in this wise: D9: 3,S%6.7 A,$%88A, 6otary "ublic 3x@7fficio, $ity /udgeD %n doing so, he obliterated the distinction between a regular notary and a notary ex officio. This .ecision should again serve as an affirmation of the rule prohibiting municipal 0udges from notarizing documents not connected with the exercise of their official duties, sub0ect to the exceptions laid down in $ircular 6o. '@(E. The .eed of Sale was offered in evidence as authentic by the Aquinos, who li1ewise insist that its enforceability militates against TignoFs claim. $orrespondingly, the burden falls upon the Aquinos to prove its authenticity and due execution. The Court of Appeals clearly erred in not appreciating the Deed of Sale as a private document and in applying the presumption of regularity that attaches only to duly notarized documents, as distinguished from private documents. &owever, if we were to instead believe .e #rancia, then the integrity of the notary public, /udge $ariGo, would be obviously compromised. Assuming that /udge $ariGo had indeed authored the .eed of Sale, it would indeed be odd that he would not remember having written the document himself yet sufficiently recall notarizing the same. %f his testimony

as to authorship of the document is deemed as dubious, then there is all the reason to ma1e a similar assumption as to his testimony on the notarization of the .eed of Sale. These inconsistencies are not of consequence because there is need to indubitably establish the author of the .eed of Sale. They are important because they cast doubt on the credibility of those witnesses of the Aquinos, presented as they were to attest to the due execution and authenticity of the .eed of Sale. The $ourt of Appeals was clearly in error in peremptorily disregarding this observation of the ,T$. Since the validity of the .eed of Sale has been successfully assailed, TignoFs right to repurchase was not extinguished at the time of the filing of the "etition for revival of 0udgment, as correctly concluded by the ,T$. The $ourt of Appeals being in error when it concluded otherwise, the reinstatement of the ,T$ .ecision is warranted.