G.R. No. 225808 - SPOUSES EDGARDO M. AGUINALDO AND NELIA T. TORRES-AGUINALDO, VS. ARTEMIO T. TORRES, JR.,**.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the CA found it equitable to compel petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in favor of respondent within thirty (30) days from finality of the Decision, in accordance with Articles 1357 and 1358 (1) of the Civil Code. [34] Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration, [35] which the CA denied in a Resolution [36] dated July 14, 2016; hence, this petition. The Issue Before the Court The essential issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA committed reversible error in ruling that there was a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent and directing petitioners to execute a registrable deed of conveyance in his favor within thirty (30) days from the finality of the decision. The Court's Ruling In the present case, the complaint was filed assailing the validity of the 1979 deed of sale, the execution of which was denied by both parties. However, while the CA found that petitioners' signatures on the said deed were manifestly different from their signatures on other pertinent documents before it, and thus, declared the said deed as spurious and did not validly transfer title to the subject properties, it failed to nullify the subject certificates of title issued pursuant to the said deed. Settled is the rule that a forged deed of sale is null and void and conveys no title. [37] Notably, the complaint prayed for the nullification of the said certificates of title based on the spurious 1979 deed of sale. [38] Hence, finding the foregoing in order, the CA's ruling must be modified accordingly. Nonetheless, save for the above modification, the Court agrees with the CA's conclusion that a valid conveyance of the subject properties to respondent was established. While respondent denied participation in the execution of the 1979 deed of sale, he claimed that the subject properties were validly sold by petitioners to him through the 1991 deed of sale. [39] On the other hand, petitioners denied the existence and due execution of the said deed, claiming that they could not have signed the same as they were in the USA when it was supposedly executed. [40] Thus, central to the resolution of the instant controversy is the determination of the authenticity of the 1991 deed of sale which, however, is a question of fact rather than of law. [41] It bears to stress that it is not the function of the Court to re-examine, winnow, and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the parties, [42] absent a showing that they fall under certain recognized exceptions, [43] none of which are present here. At the outset, it should be pointed out that the 1991 deed of sale was improperly notarized, having been signed by respondent and witness Bucapal in Makati City and by petitioners in the USA, but notarized in Tanza, Cavite, [44] which is in violation of the notarial officer's duty to demand that the party acknowledging a document must appear before him, [45] sign the document in his presence, [46] and affirm the co