SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 209702. March 23, 2022.]

SOCORRO P. CABILAO, petitioner, vs. MA. LORNA Q. TAMPAN,

rep. by her Attorney-in-fact JUDITH TAMPAN-MONTINOLA &
DANILO TAMPAN, respondents.

DECISION

HERNANDO, ** J : p

This Petition for Review on Certiorari 1 seeks to annul the January 31,
2013 Decision 2 and October 3, 2013 Resolution 3 of the Court of Appeals
(CA) in CA-G.R. CV. No. 01695, which reversed the September 21, 2007
Decision 4 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Surigao City, Branch 29, in so
far as Civil Case No. 4826 is concerned in the consolidated cases docketed
as Civil Case Nos. 4818 and 4826.
The Antecedents:
On April 7, 1988, Lorna Tampan-Naldoza (Lorna) purchased a
residential house and lot from Socorro Cabilao (Socorro) located at 599
Narciso St., Surigao City (subject property), covered by TCT No. T-59,
through a Deed of Absolute Sale of a Residential Land together with a House
5 (Deed of Sale), in the amount of P10,000.00. Since Lorna was in the United

States, her mother, Antonieta, purchased the property on her behalf. 6 In

1995, Lorna decided to have TCT No. T-59 registered in her name but she
discovered that the owner's duplicate got lost while it was kept by Judith
Tampan-Montinola (Judith) in the house. Thereafter, Lorna, through Judith,
filed a petition for the issuance of a new owner's duplicate. However,
spouses Lapulapu and Lelita (Lelita) Buyser (collectively, spouses Buyser)
opposed her petition on the ground that they were in possession of the said
title after buying the same from Socorro. Thus, Lorna's petition was
dismissed. 7
When Lelita informed Socorro about the petition for the issuance of a
new owner's copy of the title, Socorro denied having sold the subject
property to Lorna. However, due to the controversy, Socorro repurchased the
subject property and the owner's duplicate was surrendered back to her. 8
On April 29, 1996, Lorna and Judith lodged a complaint for declaration
of nullity of a pacto de retro sale entered into on January 25, 1995 between
Socorro and spouses Buyser. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 4818.
9 HSAcaE

On May 5, 1996, Socorro filed an action for Annulment or Cancellation

of Document, Quieting of Title/Recovery of Ownership and Possession,
Injunction, and Damages with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order 10 against Lorna and Danilo Tampan, which
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 was docketed as Civil Case No. 4826. She alleged that she was the absolute
and registered owner of the subject property covered by TCT No. T-59 which
was in her possession. Moreover, on April 18, 1990, she sold the subject
property through a pacto de retro sale to Enriqueta Baybayon (Enriqueta) for
P89,000.00, and to Lelita on January 25, 1995. During both transactions, she
surrendered her owner's copy of TCT No. T-59 to Enriqueta and Lelita. 11
In her Answer, 12 Lorna maintained that she owned the subject
property and claimed that Socorro was in full possession of her mental
faculties when they signed the Deed of Sale before the notary public, Atty.
Ildefonso Mantilla (Atty. Mantilla). Moreover, the document was translated
and interpreted by Atty. Mantilla to Socorro in the Surigaonon dialect, which
is the dialect she understands. Since Lorna was in the United States, her
mother, Antonieta, personally gave the consideration of P10,000.00 to
Socorro in the presence of Atty. Mantilla. In the Deed of Sale, Antonieta also
signed for and on Lorna's behalf. The true consideration paid was more or
less P100,000.00 but the Deed of Sale reflected a lesser amount to avoid a
higher payment of taxes. The owner's copy of TCT No. T-59 was stolen by
Socorro while she was living in the subject property. 13
On August 23, 1996, the RTC ordered the consolidation of Civil Case
Nos. 4818 and 4826. 14
During trial, herein respondents presented Judith, Matilde Flores
(Matilde), Atty. Mantilla, Jorge Quano (Jorge), and Reynaldo Tampan
(Reynaldo). On the other hand, petitioner presented Enriqueta, Lelita, and
Socorro herself.
Judith testified that Lorna purchased the property from Socorro through
their mother, Antonieta. Socorro turned over the owner's copy of the TCT to
Antonieta, who later own handed it over to Judith when the former left for the
United States. Prior to Lorna's purchase of the subject property, she used to
live three kilometers away and only transferred in the subject property after
its purchase. From the time of the purchase, they have been paying the real
estate taxes on the subject property, as well as the utility bills. They also
shouldered Socorro's medical check-ups while she was residing with them.
Moreover, the transfer of title to the property was not immediately done
since the money Lorna sent was only sufficient for the payment of the
property. When Lorna sent the money for the transfer of title sometime in
1995, it was also the time when Socorro suddenly left their house without
notice and took the owner's copy of the title with her. 15
Atty. Mantilla, the notary public before whom the Deed of Sale was
executed, testified that he prepared and notarized the Deed of Sale between
Socorro and Lorna. Socorro appeared personally while Antonieta represented
Lorna and signed on her behalf. The execution of the sale was witnessed by
a certain Roque Miole, legal aid from the Integrated Bar of the Philippines
(IBP), and Maria Pecante, his office staff. Socorro handed over a photocopy
of the title to Antonieta and the latter gave Socorro P10,000.00. 16
caITAC

Reynaldo confirmed that it was his sister Lorna who bought the subject
property, and he accompanied Antonieta to the notary public during the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 execution of the Deed of Sale. The real consideration of the property is
P100,000.00 but only P10,000.00 was declared in order to lessen the
payment of taxes. The following day, Socorro gave to his mother the owner's
copy of TCT No. T-59. 17
Another witness, Matilde, worked as a laundrywoman for the Tampans.
18 Meanwhile, Jorge lived in the subject property for quite some time. 19 Both
witnesses testified that Socorro sold the subject property to Lorna. 20
On the other hand, Enriqueta testified that the subject property was
sold to her by Socorro through a pacto de retro sale for P89,000.00. As
guarantee, Socorro gave her the owner's copy of TCT No. T-59. She gave the
money to Socorro, who in turn handed it over to Danilo Tampan (Danilo)
since the latter asked help from Socorro for his construction business. Danilo
and his father, Felicisimo, accompanied Socorro and signed as witnesses
during the transaction. It took three years before Socorro was able to
redeem the property. Moreover, it was Danilo who made the partial
payments and the balance was paid by Socorro after the latter found out
that the whole amount had not been paid. 21
Lelita testified that the subject property was sold to her by Socorro
through a pacto de retro sale and the owner's copy of TCT No. T-59 was also
surrendered to her. She and her husband opposed the petition for the
issuance of a new owner's copy of the title filed by Lorna. Eventually,
Socorro redeemed the property and Lelita returned the owner's copy of the
title of the property. 22
Lastly, Socorro denied the sale of the property in favor of Lorna.23 The
Tampans would let her sign various documents whenever she borrowed
money and claimed that the alleged Deed of Sale is one of those documents.
It was Danilo and Felicisimo who requested her to mortgage the subject
property to Enriqueta since Danilo needed funds for his construction
business. They even promised to redeem the property. The Tampans paid for
the utility bills of the house. 24
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court:
In its September 21, 2007 Decision, 25 the RTC dismissed Civil Case No.
4818 considering that Socorro had already repurchased the property from
Lelita and the latter already returned the owner's copy of TCT No. T-59. Thus,
the action for nullity of the pactro de retro sale had already become moot
and academic.
As to Civil Case No. 4826, the RTC declared the Deed of Sale between
Socorro and Lorna as null and void. It held that since TCT No. T-59 is under
the name of Socorro, it was evidence of indefeasible title to the property.
Moreover, the title was in Socorro's possession which is contrary to the
regular course of business, if indeed it was sold to Lorna. The Deed of Sale
between Lorna and Socorro is unenforceable considering that Lorna did not
sign the document as she was in the United States at that time. While
Antonieta signed on her behalf, there was nothing on record to prove that
Lorna authorized her mother to transact on her behalf. The price of
P10,000.00 is grossly inadequate thereby rendering the contract
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 questionable. Lastly, the RTC pointed out that it took Lorna seven years
before transferring the title to her name for no valid reason. Hence, the
timing was suspicious since Lorna wanted to transfer the title of the property
in her name while Socorro was away. 26
The dispositive portion of the decision reads:
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds in favor
of Socorro Cabilao.
Civil Case No. 4818 praying for the declaration of the Pacto de
Retro Sale entered between defendants as void; and for the spouses
Buyser to deliver to the plaintiffs TCT No. T-59 had been rendered
moot and academic and is hereby DISMISSED.
Under Civil Case No. 4826, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the "Deed of Absolute Sale of a Residential Land Together
with a House" dated April 7, 1988 null and void. Socorro Cabilao is
hereby confirmed as the lawful owner of the subject real properties.
And Lorna Q. Tampan-Montinola and Danilo Q. Tampan and any and
all persons claiming any right over the property through them are
hereby ordered to surrender possession of the subject properties
peacefully to Socorro Cabilao.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED. 27

Aggrieved, respondents filed an appeal. 28

Ruling of the Court of Appeals:
In its January 31, 2013 Decision, 29 the CA reversed the RTC's findings.
It held that while the Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title over the
property, the execution of a deed of sale of such property transfers the
ownership thereof to the buyer even if the same remains under the name of
the seller or registered owner. Since Socorro assails the validity of the Deed
of Sale to Lorna, she has the burden of proving its invalidity. However,
Socorro failed to substantiate her claim that the Tampans employed fraud
and deception in securing her signature on the Deed of Sale. The Tampans
were paying for the realty taxes over the property, thereby indicating strong
evidence of ownership. 30 TCAScE

The CA further held that the Deed of Sale between Socorro and Lorna,
being a notarized document, bears evidentiary weight with respect to its due
execution and enjoys a presumption of regularity. As to the gross
inadequacy of the consideration, the CA ruled that it does not affect the
validity of the sale. Likewise, it held that the late or non-registration of a
deed of sale does not affect its validity. 31
The fallo of the CA Decision reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant appeal is
GRANTED. The Decision dated September 21, 2007 issued by the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Surigao City is hereby MODIFIED in
that as to Civil Case No. 4826, the same is hereby REVERSED and
SET ASIDE and the Complaint for ["]Annulment or Cancellation of
Document, Quieting of Title/Recovery of Ownership and Possession,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Injunction, and Damages with prayer for Preliminary Injunction and
Temporary Restraining Order" filed by appellee Socorro Cabilao is
hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED. 32

Socorro sought reconsideration 33 but it was denied by the CA in its

October 3, 2013 Resolution. 34
Hence, the present petition. 35 Socorro maintains that she never sold
the subject property to Lorna or any of the latter's representatives. As an
illiterate person, she claims that she does not understand English and while
the purported deed of sale bears her signature, the same was obtained
through fraud by the Tampans in the guise of signing loan documents
whenever she borrowed money. Thus, she contends that the Deed of Sale is
a simulated contract or one tainted with fraud and therefore null and void. 36
Socorro further claims that her possession over the owner's duplicate
copy of the TCT is inconsistent with any intention to convey ownership to
another. The property had been the subject of two pacto de retro sales
which shows that she clearly had possession over the owner's copy of the
title. She points out that if the sale of the subject property indeed transpired,
respondents did not take the necessary steps to register the property in their
name for almost seven years. 37
In their Comment, 38 respondents argue that Socorro has the burden of
proving the existence of fraud which she failed to discharge. Socorro already
admitted the genuineness of her signature in the Deed of Sale. However,
aside from her bare assertion, Socorro's claim of the existence of fraud
remains unsubstantiated. More importantly, the Deed of Sale was notarized.
Hence, it carried the presumption of its due execution. As to the claim of
gross inadequacy of price and non-registration of the deed of sale,
respondents contend that it does not affect the validity of a contract of sale.
Both parties also filed their respective memoranda. 39
Issue
The issue for resolution before the Court is whether the Deed of Sale
between Lorna and Socorro is valid.
Our Ruling
We find the petition unmeritorious.
The present controversy hinges on the validity of the Deed of Sale
between Lorna and Socorro, which however is a question of fact. 40 It is well-
settled that questions of fact are not reviewable in petitions for review on
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As a general rule, this Court is
not duty-bound to analyze again and weigh the evidence introduced in and
considered by the courts below. 41 Factual findings of the lower courts, if
supported by substantial evidence, are accorded great respect and even
finality by this Court unless the case falls under any of the exceptions such
as when the findings are contrary to those of the trial court. 42 In the case at
bar, the CA's factual findings are contrary to those of the RTC. Hence, this
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Court is called upon to reevaluate the factual findings below.
After a judicious review of the records of the case, We sustain the
findings of the CA and uphold the validity of the Deed of Sale between Lorna
and Socorro.
Article 1305 of New Civil Code (NCC) provides that a contract is "a
meeting of minds between two persons whereby one binds himself, with
respect to the other, to give something or to render some service." The
essential requisites are: (1) consent of the contracting parties; (2) object
certain which is the subject matter of the contract; and (3) cause of the
obligation which is established. In the present case, all the elements of a
valid contract are present. In the case at bar, the Deed of Sale validly
transferred the ownership over TCT No. T-59 from Socorro to Lorna in
consideration of P10,000.00. Arguing the absence of consent on her part,
Socorro claims that the Deed of Sale is null and void since her signature
thereon was obtained through fraud, or under the guise of a contract of loan.
However, the evidence on record belies her theory. cHDAIS

Reynaldo testified that he was present during the execution of the

Deed of Sale where he witnessed Antonieta and Socorro sign the document.
He further testified that Socorro gave Antonieta the owner's duplicate copy
of the title the following day. 43
More importantly, Atty. Mantilla, who prepared and notarized the Deed
of Sale, testified and categorically stated that Socorro signed the Deed of
Sale and received the consideration of P10,000.00 from Antonieta. At that
instance, Socorro handed over a photocopy of the duplicate copy of the title
to Antonieta. When asked why Socorro only handed over a photocopy of the
TCT, she answered that the duplicate copy was still with a certain Leon
Danaque because of her outstanding loan with him. 44
It is a well-settled rule that a duly notarized document enjoys the prima
facie presumption of authenticity and due execution, as well as the full faith
and credence attached to a public instrument. 45 Thus, a party assailing the
authenticity and due execution of a notarized document is required to
present evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely
preponderant. 46 Here, Socorro failed to overcome this burden. Aside from
her self-serving allegation that she did not know that she was signing a Deed
of Sale, there is nothing else on record that supports her assertion.
While Socorro claims that she is an illiterate person, she failed to prove
this fact. When a party claims that one is unable to read or is otherwise
illiterate, and fraud is alleged, a presumption that there is fraud or mistake
in obtaining consent of that party arises under Article 1332 of the NCC,
which provides:
When one of the parties is unable to read, or if the contract is in
a language not understood by him, and mistake or fraud is alleged,
the person enforcing the contract must show that the terms thereof
have been fully explained to the former.
However, for Article 1332 to be applicable, the contracting party who
alleges fraud or vitiated consent must establish the same by full, clear and
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 convincing evidence. 47 The party must show clear and convincing evidence
of one's personal circumstances and that he or she is unable to read at the
time of execution of the contested contract. 48 Here, there is nothing in
Socorro's testimony showing that she cannot read English or that she was
illiterate. To the contrary, the pacto de retro sales 49 that she entered into
with Enriqueta and Lelita, respectively, indicate that she is able to read, affix
her signature, freely give her consent and enter into contracts. Thus, the
presumption of fraud did not arise and Socorro had the burden of proving
that the Tampans fraudulently secured her signature under the guise of
another loan document which she would usually sign whenever she
borrowed money. However, she failed to do so. In fact, such purported loan
documents were not even offered in evidence.
It is also of no moment that the consideration was in the amount of
P10,000.00. Gross inadequacy of price does not affect the validity of a
contract of sale, unless it signifies a defect in the consent or that the parties
actually intended a donation or some other contract. 50 Inadequacy of cause
will not invalidate a contract unless there has been fraud, mistake or undue
influence. 51 As earlier stated, fraud was not proven. Hence, the
consideration in the amount of P10,000.00 did not invalidate the sale.
We likewise note that the title over the subject property remained
under Socorro's name despite the execution of the Deed of Sale. However,
this does not also affect the validity of the deed of sale. Transfer of the
certificate of title in the name of the buyer and transfer of ownership to the
buyer are two different concepts. 52 As correctly held by the CA, between the
seller and buyer, ownership is transferred not by the issuance of the new
certificate of title in the name of the buyer but by the execution of the
instrument of sale in a public document. 53 Article 1498 of the New Civil
Code provides that: DHITCc

Art. 1498. When the sale is made through a public

instrument, the execution thereof shall be equivalent to the delivery
of the thing which is the object of the contract, if from the deed the
contrary does not appear or cannot clearly be inferred.
Therefore, contrary to Soccoro's assertion, it is of no moment that the
title was only registered seven years after the deed of sale was executed.
The sale was already perfected upon the execution of the Deed of Sale
before Atty. Mantilla. The non-registration of the title was also aptly
explained by Judith in that the money given by Lorna, who was in the United
States, was only enough for the purchase of the property. Hence, it took
some time before the same could be registered and transferred in Lornas's
name.
While Socorro was able to enter into pacto de retro sales for being in
possession of the owner's duplicate of the TCT, this fact cannot overturn the
evidentiary weight of the notarized Deed of Sale in favor of Lorna. In fact,
Enriqueta testified that the proceeds of the pacto de retro sale were given to
Danilo for his construction company. During cross examination, Soccoro
confirmed this and stated that it was Danilo and his dad Felicisimo who
requested to mortgage the property. 54 Precisely because the title was still in
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com
 Socorro's name despite the sale, it is logical to conclude that the Tampans
had to ask Socorro to enter into a contract with Enriqueta to borrow money.
If indeed the pacto de retro sale was entered into because Danilo borrowed
from Socorro as the latter claims, it would have been prudent if the loan was
put into writing and presented as evidence. However, such is not the case.
It is also uncontested that the real property taxes are paid by the
Tampans. 55 It is a settled rule that tax declarations and realty tax payment
of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless
good indicia of the possession in the concept of owner, for no one in his right
mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or at least
constructive possession. 56 Coupled with the other pieces of respondent's
evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the property was indeed sold to
Lorna since the Tampans have been living in the property and exercising
acts of dominion and control over the property.
As between the testimonies of petitioner and her other witnesses which
failed to prove clearly, positively, and convincingly that she did not intend to
sell the property, and the testimonial and documentary evidence of
respondents, i.e., the notarized Deed of Sale, tax declaration, and tax
receipts, the latter evidence prevails. Testimonial evidence is susceptible to
fabrication and there is very little room for choice between testimonial
evidence and documentary evidence. Thus, in the weighing of evidence,
documentary evidence prevails over testimonial evidence. 57 Taking into
account the totality of evidence in the present case, this Court is inclined to
rule in favor of Lorna.
WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DENIED. The January 31, 2013
Decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 01695 is hereby
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Zalameda, Rosario and Marquez, JJ., concur.
Perlas-Bernabe, * J., is on official leave.

Footnotes

* On official leave.
** Per Special Order No. 2882 dated March 17, 2022.
1. Rollo , pp. 11-24.
2. CA rollo, pp. 80-101. Penned by Associate Justice Ma. Luisa C. Quijano-Padilla
and concurred in by Associate Justices Romulo V. Borja and Marie Christine
Azcarraga-Jacob.
3. Rollo , pp. 52-56.
4. CA rollo, pp. 33-42. Penned by Assisting Judge Louis P. Acosta.
5. Records, p. 146.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 6. TSN, September 25, 1997, pp. 9-10.
7. TSN, November 3, 1999, pp. 5-17.
8. TSN, April 22, 2003, p. 22.

9. CA rollo, p. 81.
10. Records, pp. 1-6.
11. Rollo , pp. 152-153.
12. Records, pp. 32-34.
13. Id.

14. Records, p. 27.

15. TSN, November 3, 1999, pp. 5-27.
16. TSN, February 5, 2001, pp. 4-10.
17. TSN, July 11, 2001, pp. 5-11.

18. TSN, April 17, 1998, p. 5.

19. TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 5-6.
20. TSN, April 17, 1998, p. 5; TSN, April 24, 2001, pp. 11-12.
21. TSN, September 19, 2002, pp. 3-19.
22. TSN, November 14, 2002, pp. 6-11.

23. TSN, April 22, 2003, pp. 13-17.

24. Id. at 18-20.
25. CA rollo, pp. 33-42.
26. Id. at 41-42.
27. Id. at 42.

28. Id. at 13-29.

29. Id. at 80-101.
30. Id. at 92-98.
31. Id. at 98-99.

32. Id. at 100.

33. Id. at 102-111.
34. Rollo , pp. 52-56. Penned by Associate Justice Romulo V. Borja and concurred in
by Associate Justices Ma. Christine Azcarraga Jacob and Oscar V. Badelles.
35. Id. at 11-24.
36. Id. at 16-21.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com

 37. Id. at 21-24.
38. Id. at 76-146.
39. Id. at 130-146 and 150-159.
40. Dela Cruz v. Spouses Sison, 492 Phil. 139, 144 (2005).

41. Medina v. Court of Appeals, 693 Phil. 356, 366 (2012).

42. Id. at 366-367, citing Cirtek Employees Labor Union-Federation of Free Workers
v. Cirtek Electronics, Inc., 665 Phil. 784, 789 (2011).
43. TSN, July 11, 2001, pp. 9-11.
44. TSN, February 5, 2001, pp. 8-13.
45. Gatan v. Vinarao, 820 Phil. 257, 267 (2017).
46. Manongsong v. Estimo , 452 Phil. 862, 877-878 (2003), citing Ruiz v. Court of
Appeals, 414 Phil. 310, 325 (2001); see also Realubit v. Spouses Jaso , 673
Phil. 618, 625-626 (2011).
47. Leonardo v. Court of Appeals, 481 Phil. 520, 581 (2004), citing Arriola vs.
Mahilum, 392 Phil. 242, 250 (2000).
48. Id.
49. Exhibits "1," "2" to "2-A."
50. New Civil Code, Art. 1470.

51. New Civil Code, Art. 1355.

52. Chua v. Court of Appeals, 449 Phil. 25, 46 (2003).
53. CA rollo, p. 96.
54. TSN, April 22, 2003, pp. 18-19.

55. Exhibits "D" to "D-6"; TSN, November 3, 1999, pp. 31-33; TSN, April 22, 2003,
pp. 20-21.
56. Tolentino v. Sps. Latagan , 761 Phil. 108, 137-138 (2015), citing Ganila v. Court
of Appeals, 500 Phil. 212, 224 (2005).
57. Government Service Insurance System v. Court of Appeals, 294 Phil. 699, 710
(1993), citing Marvel Building Corporation vs. David, 94 Phil. 376, 387-388
(1954).

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2022 cdasiaonline.com