FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 116018.
NELIA A. CONSTANTINO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, AURORA S. ROQUE, PRISCILLA S. LUNA and JOSEFINA S. AUSTRIA, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
BELLOSILLO, J.:
JOSEFA TORRES died intestate leaving a parcel of land located at
Balagtas, Bulacan. Among her heirs are respondents Aurora S. Roque, Priscilla
S. Luna and Josefina S. Austria. Sometime in 1984, the heirs of Josefa Torres,
as vendors, and petitioner Nelia A. Constantino, as vendee, entered into a
contract to sell a parcel of land with a total land area of two hundred and
fifty (250) square meters. The lot,
owned in common by the Torres heirs, is being occupied by petitioners’ mother
and sister. An adjoining lot, also
co-owned by the heirs, is being occupied by spouses Severino and Consuelo Lim.
Pursuant to their agreement, the heirs authorized petitioner to prepare the
necessary Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
After having the document drafted - with several spaces left blank including the specification as to the metes and bounds of the land - petitioner asked the heirs to affix their signatures on the document. The heirs signed the document with the understanding that respondent Aurora S. Roque, one of the heirs, would be present when the latter would seek permission from the Bureau of Lands and have the land surveyed.
However, without the participation of any of the Torres heirs,
the property was subsequently surveyed, subdivided and then covered by TCT Nos.
T-292265 and T-292266. Petitioner did not furnish the heirs with copies of the
Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
On
Petitioner controverted the allegations of respondents by
presenting the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with
In reply, private respondents reiterated that all the heirs signed the document before the land was surveyed and subdivided, hence, there was as yet no definite area to be sold that could be indicated in the deed at the time of the signing. They also claimed that they were not notified about the survey and the subdivision of the lot and therefore they could not have agreed on the area supposedly sold to petitioner. The respondent heirs insist that they could not have agreed to the extent of the area actually reflected in the deed because it included the portion being occupied by the Lim spouses, which was already the subject of a previous agreement to sell between them and their predecessor.
The trial court entertained serious doubts with respect to the
preparation and due execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate
with Sale taking into account that (a) while petitioner claimed that all the heirs
signed before the notary public and in her presence, she was not able to
enumerate all the signatories to the document; (b) while petitioner claimed
that the document was signed only after the survey of the land was completed,
or on 10 October 1984, such fact was negated by her own witness who testified
that the survey was conducted only on 16 October 1984; and, (c) while
petitioner alleged that the document was signed and notarized in Manila no
explanation was offered why the same could not have been signed and notarized
in Bulacan where notaries public abound which could have been less inconvenient
to the parties concerned. Additionally,
the trial court relied heavily on the assertions of respondents as reflected in
their demand letter that they did not give their consent to the sale of
Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record, the trial court on P50,000.00 for moral damages, P15,000.00
for attorney’s fees, and to pay the costs of suit.[2]
On
Petitioner faults respondent Court of Appeals: (a) for
disregarding documentary evidence already presented, marked and identified on a
purely technical ground, and (b) for concluding that the Deed of Extrajudicial
Settlement of Estate with
Petitioner argues that the trial court should not have denied her motion to admit formal offer of evidence merely on the basis of technicality such as late filing, citing Siguenza v. Court of Appeals.[5] We are not persuaded. Indeed, we held in Siguenza that rules of procedure are not to be applied in a very rigid and technical sense as they are used only to help secure, not override, substantial justice. Yet the holding is inapplicable to the present case as the trial court had a reasonable basis for denying petitioner’s motion -
On
On
The trial court was correct in holding that petitioner waived the right to formally offer his evidence. A considerable lapse of time, about three (3) months, had already passed before petitioner’s counsel made effort to formally offer his evidence. For the trial court to grant petitioner’s motion to admit her exhibits would be to condone an inexcusable laxity if not non-compliance with a court order which, in effect, would encourage needless delays and derail the speedy administration of justice.
Petitioner also insists that the real intent of the parties was
to make the entire P30,000.00 as partial payment for the lot
occupied by Ka Baring and Lina (relatives of petitioner) and Iling (Consuelo
Lim). Moreover, according to petitioner,
the assertions of private respondents to petitioner contained in the demand
letter should not necessarily be true and that the validity of the Deed of
Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale was not affected by the fact that
it was notarized in a place other than where the subject matter thereof was
situated, citing Sales v. Court of Appeals.[6]
These other arguments of petitioner are barren and futile. The admission of respondent Roque cannot prevail in the face of the clear evidence that there was as yet no meeting of the minds on the land area to be sold since private respondents were still awaiting the survey to be conducted on the premises. Obviously, the trial court only lent credence to the assertions in the demand letter after having weighed the respective evidence of the parties. But even without the letter, the evidence of respondents had already amply substantiated their claims.
We ruled in the Sales case that the extrinsic validity of a document was not affected by the fact that it was notarized in a place other than where the subject matter thereof was located. What is more important under the Notarial Law is that the notary public has authority to acknowledge the document executed within his territorial jurisdiction. The ruling in Sales is not applicable to the present case. Our concern here is not whether the notary public had the authority to acknowledge the document executed within his territorial jurisdiction but whether respondents indeed appeared before him and signed the deed. However, the quantum of evidence shows that they did not.
The trial court correctly appreciated the fact that the deed was
notarized in
Likewise, we find the allegation of respondents that they signed
the deed prior to the survey, or before determination of the area to be sold,
worthy of credit as against the contention of petitioner that they signed after
the survey or on
Perhaps, another compelling reason for the annulment of the document of settlement and conveyance is that the second page thereof clearly manifests that the number of the subdivision plan and the respective areas of Lots 4-A and 4-B were merely handwritten while all the rest of the statements therein were typewritten, which leads us to the conclusion that handwritten figures thereon were not available at the time the document was formalized.
WHEREFORE, there being no error to warrant a reversal of
the decision and resolution in question of respondent Court of Appeals, which
affirmed the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos,
SO ORDERED.
Padilla (Chairman), Vitug, Kapunan, and Hermosisima, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1]
Assigned to
[2]
Decision penned by Judge Candido R. Belmonte, RTC - Br. 22, Malolos, Bulacan; Rollo,
pp. 29-38.
[3]
Decision penned by Justice Emeterio C. Cui, concurred in by Justices Quirino
Abad Santos, Jr., and Alfredo J. Lagamon, Rollo, pp. 26-28.
[4]
[5]
No. L-44050,
[6] No. L-40145,
[7]
See Periquet, Jr. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 69996,
[8]
Alcasid v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104751,