Bautista vs. CA Facts: Disputed parcel of land. Now deceased Cesar Morelos is the uncle of the petitioner.

He conveyed the now disputed parcel of land to the petitioner, Laura Morelos Bautista evidenced by a deed of absolute sale and notarized by Luis M. de Guzman. A transfer certificate of title was also issued in favor of petitioner. Respondent claims to be the illegitimate child of Cesar Morelos and instituted a complaint for declaration of nullity of sale and title with damages. He presented expert witness testimonies who claimed that the signature of Cesar Morelos and fingerprint on the Deed of Absolute Sale and the fingerprint on his Residence Certificate were not his. The witness to the assailed deed of sale testified that she saw Cesar Morelos and Laura Bautista sign it. The trial court found the deed of sale valid. Upon appeal to the Court of Appeals, the CA reversed the decision and declared the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void. Issue: Whether or not the witness testimony is sufficient to nullify a duly executed and notarized deed of absolute sale. Ruling: Respondent presented the testimony of Francisco Cruz, Jr., Chief Examiner of the PC-INP Crime Laboratory Service who claimed that the signature on the deed of sale was written by a different person. Major Braulio Monge, Chief of the Fingerprint Division of the PC-INP, testified that the thumbmark of Cesar Morelos appearing on the residence certificate indicated in the Deed of Absolute Sale was not his. A notarized contract enjoys prima facie presumption of authenticity. To overturn this legal presumption, evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant to establish that there was forgery that gave rise to a spurious contract. Hence, a finding of forgery does not depend entirely on the testimony of handwriting experts. Although such testimony may be useful, the judge still exercises independent judgment on the issue of authenticity of the signatures under scrutiny; he cannot rely on the mere testimony of the handwriting expert. Witness Francisco Cruz, Jr. failed to establish the fact

that the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was not that of Cesar Morelos. He merely concluded that the document was a forgery without citing any factual basis for arriving at that conclusion. Cruz did not point out distinguishing marks, characteristics and discrepancies in and between genuine and false specimens of writing, which would ordinarily escape detection by an ordinary lay person. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition is GRANTED declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale between petitioner Laura Morelos Bautista and Cesar Morelos over the subject parcel of land REINSTATED. Vasquez vs. CA Facts: Spouses Martin Vallejera and Apolonia Olea (respondents) filed this action against Spouses Cipriano Vasquez (petitioners herein) seeking to redeem a lot sold by respondent spouses. Said lot was registered in the name of Vallejera and Olea and the same lot was leased by them to Cipriano and Vasquez (1966-1969). After the execution of the lease, Cipriano and Vasquez took possession of the lot, up to now and devoted the same to the cultivation of sugar. Respondent spouses sold the lot to the petitioners under a Deed of Sale which was duly ratified and notarized. Petitioners got hold then of a TCT. Along with the Deed of Sale is a separate instrument (Right to Repurchase) was executed by them granting the respondent spouses such right to repurchase lot for 12k. (also ratified and notarized) However, after securing petitioners title, respondent spouses sold the same lot to Benito Derrama. Upon protestations of defendant, the said second sale was cancelled after the payment of 12 k by petitioners to Derrama. Petitioner spouses resisted this action for redemption on the premise that the Right to Repurchase is just an option to buy as such is not supported by a considereation distinct from the price, making it not binding to them. LC: against Cipriano and Vasquez; MR: denied also; CA: in favor of Vallejo and Olea Issue: Whether or not there was a vbalid right to repurchase. Held: NONE It is clear that the right to repurchase was not supported by consideration distinct from the price. The rule is that the promisee has the burden of proving

such consideration. Unfortunately, Vallejera and Olea, promisees in the right to repurchase failed to prove such consideration. The record does not show that Vallejera and Olea accepted the right to repurchase. Disagrees with the LC that Vallejera and Olea accepted the right to repurchase as evidenced by the annotation and registration of the same on the back of the TCT in the name of respondent spouses. As such, the Vasquez spouses are estopped from disregarding it. The annotation and registration of the right to repurchase at the back of the TCT of the petitioners cannot be considered as acceptance of the right to repurchase. Its only purpose is to bind purchasers of such registered land. In effect, the annotation of the right to repurchase found at the back of the certificate of title over the subject land of respondent spouses served as a notice of the existence of such unilateral promise of the petitioners to resell the same to respondent spouses. The respondents did not sign the offer. Acceptance should be made by the promisee, in this case, the respondent spouses and not the promisors, the petitioners herein. The respondent spouses ineffectual acceptance then of the option to buy validated the petitioners refusal to sell the parcel which can be considered as a withdrawal of the option to buy. Since the transaction between the petitioners and respondents was not a sale with a right to repurchase, the respondents cannot avail of conventional redemption. Petition granted. Tayag vs. Lacson Facts: A group of farmers/tillers, who farmed on the land owned by the Lacson family, entered into separate Deeds of Assignment with Tayag. According to the Deeds, each of the farmers would waive in favor of Tayag his right to the actual area of land being tilled, provided that there be no legal impediment prejudicing the smooth transfer of lawful ownership of the property in Tayags name. The going price would be P50.00 per square meter of land actually being tilled by each farmer. Tayag then started paying various sums to each of the farmers, to be taken as partial payments under the Deeds terms. To further expedite the process, Tayag called a meeting to work out the implementation of the terms of their separate agreements. However, the farmers wrote back to Tayag, saying that they werent planning to attend the meeting, and that they were planning to sell their rights and interests over the land to the Lacson family instead. They also claimed that they were tricked into

agreeing on the Deeds, and that they received the various sums from Tayag in the form of loans, not as payments under the Deeds. In his response, Tayag claimed that the farmers were being coerced by the Lacsons to renege on their previous commitments to him and that the Deeds must be honored in the interest of law. The trial court ruled in favor of Tayag (granting him injunctive relief) but the CA reversed, and enjoined the trial court from proceeding with the civil case. Issue: Whether or not the deeds of assignment executed are perfected option contracts? Held: NO An option contract by which the owner of the property agrees with another person that he shall have the right to buy his property at a fixed price within a certain time. It imposes no binding obligation on the person holding the option, aside from the consideration for the offer. Until accepted, it is not, properly speaking, treated as a contract. The petitioner was burdened to establish the following: (1) a right in lesse or a clear and unmistakable right to be protected; (2) a violation of that right; (3) that there is an urgent and permanent act and urgent necessity for the writ to prevent serious damage No. They were not parties to the Deeds of Assigment between Tayag and the farmers. (1) As duly registered owners of the property, the Lacsons have the right to enjoy and dispose of the property without any other limitations than those established by law. They may enter into contracts covering their property with another under such terms and conditions as they may deem beneficial provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good conduct, public order or public policy. (2) In addition, the Deeds stated that such right in favor of Tayag would be available only if there existed no legal obstacle to his acquisition of the property. There is no showing in the petitioners complaint that the respondents had agreed to sell their property, and that the legal impediments to the agreement no longer existed. The petitioner and the defendants-tenants had yet to submit the Deeds of Assignment to the Department of Agrarian Reform which, in turn, had to act on and approve or disapprove the same. In this case, the defendants-tenants-subtenants, under the deeds of assignment, granted to the petitioner not only an option but the exclusive right to buy the landholding. But the grantors were merely the

defendants-tenants, and not the respondents, the registered owners of the property. Not being the registered owners of the property, the defendantstenants could not legally grant to the petitioner the option, much less the exclusive right to buy the property. He never even came close to having a claim to the land; there is no right to speak of. It must also be noted that Tayags supposed scheme is truly revolting to the conscience. For the measly sum of fifty bucks per square meter, hed be depriving the farmers/tillers of their interests over the land they work so hard to cultivate. An option contract is a separate and distinct contract from which the parties may enter into upon the conjunction of the option.