G.R. No. 115508 - ALEJANDRO AGASEN AND FORTUNATA CALONGE-AGASEN, VS. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS AND PETRA BILOG, ASSISTED BY HER HUSBAND FELIPE BILOG.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, petitioners were ordered to turn over the subject land to private respondent. With the denial of petitioners Motion for Reconsideration on May 20, 1994, [5] the instant Petition was filed, anchored upon the following grounds THE DECISION (ANNEX A) ERRED IN DECLARING THE DEED OF PARTITION WITH SALE (EXH. 1) AND THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE (EXH. 2) NOT AUTHENTIC AND VALID; THE DECISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEFENDANTS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THEIR CLAIM OF OWNERSHIP AND IN GIVING MORE CREDENCE TO PLAINTIFFS TESTIMONIAL EVIDENCE AND TAX DECLARATION NO. 21460 (EXH. B) AND CERTIFICATION OF TAX PAYMENTS (EXH. C); THE DECISION ERRED IN FINDING/HOLDING THAT THE NON-REGISTRATION OF THE DEED OF PARTITION WITH SALE AND THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS MADE THE PURCHASES THEREUNDER "DENTED" AND DID NOT AUTOMATICALLY VEST TITLE OR OWNERSHIP OVER THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE BUYERS; THE DECISION ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DAILY NOTEBOOK (EXH. 3) CONTAINING THE MEMORANDUM OF INSTALLMENT SALE BY LEONORA CALONGE TO DEFENDANT-APPELLEE FORTUNATA AGASEN (EXH. 3-a TO 3-c) OVER THE PARCEL OF LAND DESCRIBED IN EXH. 2 WAS NOT A VALID OR CREDIBLE DOCUMENT OF TRANSFER; THE DECISION GRAVELY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TCT NO. 16109 (EXH. A) CANNOT BE COLLATERALLY ATTACKED ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS BARRED BY THE RULE ON INDEFEASIBILITY OF A TORRENS TITLE AFTER THE LAPSE OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DECREE OF REGISTRATION. [6] Although the instant case is a petition for review under Rule 45 which, as a general rule, is limited to reviewing errors of law, findings of fact being conclusive as a matter of general principle, however, considering the conflict between the factual findings of the trial court and the respondent Court of Appeals, there is a need to review the factual issues as an exception to the general rule. [7] As correctly stated by the lower court, the crucial question in the instant controversy is whether or not the two (2) documents, relied upon by petitioners as basis for their claim of ownership, are valid. Overthrowing the lower courts finding of validity, the Court of Appeals ruled that private respondents testimonial and documentary evidence "junked" petitioners documents (Exhibits "1" and "2"). We disagree. To begin with, it is not denied that the two subject documents are notarized documents and, as such, are considered public documents which enjoy the presumption of validity as to authenticity and due execution. [8] One of the documents, the Deed of Absolute Sale, was identified by Assistant Provincial Fiscal Maximo Quero, the administering officer who had notarized it. The legal presumption of validity of petitioners duly notarized public documents has not been overcome by preponderant evidence by private respondent, upon whom the burden of proof rests, having alleged the contrary. [9] The subject documents were also attached by petitioners to their Answer where they were alleged as part of the counterclaim. As such, private respon