SPOUSES LUCIA A. OROZCO and CRESENTE R. OROZCO (DECEASED), substituted by his heirs, namely: JOCELYN O.
GUJELING, JUDITH O. SEMACIO, GENILYN O. PERIABRAS, GEMMA O. PERALTA, ROCKY A. OROZCO and GISSA O.
FERRER,
vs.
FLORANTE G. LOZANO, SR. (DECEASED), substituted by his heirs, namely: EPIFANIA LOZANO, SHIRLEY L.
SALCEDO, JOCELYN L. BASTARECHE, RACHEL L. GILOS, FLORANTE G. LOZANO, JR., and ROBERT G. LOZANO,
Respondents
The Facts
Spouses Orozco purchased from Spouses Fuentes two residential lots both situated in Barangay 2, San
Francisco, Agusan del Sur. The lots are identified as Lot No. 3780, Pls-67 and Lot No. 3105, Pls-67. On 4
September 1980, Spouses Orozco sold half of Lot No. 3780 to Florante G. Lozano, Sr. (Lozano) for
₱5,000.00. Half of Lot No. 3780 which was sold by Spouses Orozco to Lozano was assigned as Lot No.
3780-A while the other half retained by Spouses Orozco was designated as Lot No. 3780-B. At the time of
the sale, Cresente Orozco (Orozco) used a rope to measure Lot No. 3780, which Orozco thought had an
area of 570 square meters. Lozano constructed a building between Lot No. 3780-A and Lot No. 3780-B
which Lozano used as a boarding house.
Spouses Orozco did not prevent Lozano from building the boarding house because Spouses Orozco
thought that the said boarding house was constructed within the 285 square meter portion which
Spouses Orozco sold to Lozano. Allegedly, Spouses Orozco were surprised when Lozano asked them to
sign a piece of paper, purportedly an acknowledgment receipt of the payment of ₱500.00 for the
additional area on top of the 285 square meters principally sold. Spouses Orozco claimed that they did not
sign such acknowledgment receipt because according to them there was no additional area sold to
Lozano.
On the other hand, Lozano claimed that Spouses Orozco agreed to sell to him an additional 62 square
meters of Spouses Orozco's 325.5 square meter portion and that Lozano agreed to make an additional
payment of ₱1,000.00 in consideration for the said added portion. On 24 April 1981, evidenced by an
acknowledgment receipt, Lozano paid Spouses Orozco P400.00. Subsequently, Lozano paid Spouses
Orozco ₱300.00, totaling ₱700.00, leaving ₱300.00 as the remaining unpaid balance for the 62 square
meter added portion. Without receiving the full payment, Spouses Orozco made repeated demands to
Lozano to vacate the portion of Spouses Orozco's lot that Lozano allegedly encroached upon but the latter
refused to vacate. Spouses Orozco and Lozano then brought their dispute for barangay conciliation.
Spouses Orozco filed a complaint for Recovery of Possession and Damages with Application for Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
MTC ruled in favor of Sps. Orozco and order Lozano to vacate the portion of Lot No. 3780-B encroached
upon and to restore the possession of the said portion to Spouses Orozco. However, RTC reversed the
decision of the MTC and said that there was a valid contract of sale between Spouses Orozco and Lozano.
On appeal, CA affirmed the decision of the RTC. Hence, filed this petition
Issues:
There was a subsequent perfected contract of sale between Spouses Orozco and Lozano for an additional 62
square meters of Lot No. 3780-B.
Ruling:
SC denied the petition
In Del Prado v. Spouses Caballero,21 this Court held that a perfected contract of sale of real estate effectively gives
rise to the right to transfer ownership of the real estate from the vendor to the vendee. This Court discussed the
essential elements of a contract of sale of real estate, to wit:
Contracts are the law between the contracting parties. Sale, by its very nature, is a consensual contract, because it
is perfected by mere consent. The essential elements of a contract of sale are the following: (a) consent or meeting
of the minds, that is, consent to transfer ownership in exchange for the price; (b) determinate subject matter; and
(c) price certain in money or its equivalent. All these elements are present in the instant case.
In the present case, there was a perfected contract of sale for the 62 square meter portion of Lot No. 3780-B from
Spouses Orozco to Lozano. There was a meeting of the minds between Spouses Orozco and Lozano when the latter
offered to purchase for ₱1,000.00 an additional 62 square meters of Lot No. 3780-B from Spouses Orozco to
extend the boundary of his property, Lot No. 3780-A, up to the mango tree. 23 Lozano's offer was accepted by
Spouses Orozco and the initial payment of P400.00 was made by Lozano as evidenced by the handwritten
acknowledgment receipt dated 24 April 1981 signed by Orozco. Subsequently, another payment of ₱300.00 by
Lozano was made to Lucia Orozco, totaling the payment of Lozano to ₱700.00, leaving a remaining unpaid balance
of ₱300.00, before the dispute was brought to the barangay by Spouses Orozco for resolution.
As a rule, forgery cannot be presumed and must be proved by clear, positive, and convincing evidence. The burden
of proof lies on the party alleging forgery. 24 One who alleges forgery has the burden to establish his case by a
preponderance of evidence, or evidence which is of greater weight or more convincing than that which is offered
in opposition to it. 25 The fact of forgery can only be established by a comparison between the alleged forged
signature and the authentic and genuine signature of the person whose signature is theorized to have been forged.
