G.R. No. 156705 - SOCORRO TAOPO BANGA, VS. SPOUSES JOSE AND EMELINE BELLO. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the judgment is hereby rendered in favor of [petitioner] and against [Nelson and respondents]: Declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 11, 1989 as NULL and VOID ab initio. Canceling Transfer of Certificate of Title No. 3294, Registry of Deeds of Mandaluyong, Metro Manila (now City of Mandaluyong). Ordering [respondent] Jose V. Bello V to pay [petitioner] the amount of P50,000.00 as exemplary damages . Ordering [respondent] Jose V. Bello V and Nelson F. Banga to pay, jointly and severally, [petitioner] the amount of P50,000.00 as and by way of attorney's fees. Ordering [respondent] Jose V. Bello V and Nelson F. Banga to pay, jointly and severally, the costs of suit. Counterclaims filed by [respondent] Jose V. Bello V and Nelson F. Banga against [petitioner] are DISMISSED. Crossclaim filed by Banga against [respondent] Bello is DISMISSED. (Underscoring supplied) Respondents thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals faulting the trial court in: I . . . DECLARING VOID AB INITIO THE DEED OF SALE DATED DECEMBER 11, 1989. II . . . NOT ORDERING [PETITIONER] AND HER HUSBAND, NELSON BANGA, TO PAY THEIR MORTGAGE INDEBTEDNESS TO [RESPONDENTS] . III . . . HOLDING THAT [RESPONDENTS] ACTED WITH GROSS NEGLIGENCE AMOUNTING TO BAD FAITH. IV . . . ORDERING [RESPONDENTS] TO PAY EXEMPLARY DAMAGES TO [PETITIONER] [13] (Underscoring supplied) Nelson did not appeal the trial court's decision. By Decision [14] dated December 13, 2002, the appellate court granted the appeal of respondents, it holding that: The document denominated as Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 11, 1989 executed between [respondent] Bello and Banga, with the marital consent of the latter's wife Socorro, indicates in certain terms, the object, the cause and the consideration of the contract of sale. The instrument was duly notarized and signed in the presence of two (2) witnesses. As the language of the written contract of sale between the parties is clear and unambiguous , it must be taken to mean that which, on its face, it purports to mean. And unless some good reason can be assigned to show that the words used should be understood in a different sense, the contract must stand. Moreover, the deed of sale involved in the instant controversy is a notarized document. Being a public instrument, it has in its favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Other than the bare allegations of [petitioner] that the deed of sale is fictitious, no convincing proof was adduced to overcome the presumption of validity as to its authenticity and due execution. As complainant, plaintiff had the burden of proving that contrary to the recital in the deed of sale, she never appeared before the notary public and acknowledged the deed to be her voluntary act. It is worth mentioning that the deed of sale and the real estate mortgage previously executed between the parties was notarized by the