Heirs of Cipriano Trazona Vs Heirs of Canada

Heirs of Cipriano Trazona vs.
Heirs of Dionisio Cañada

G.R. No. 175874
December 11, 2013
Facts:
Petitioners are heirs of Cipriano Trazona,b who owned an untitled parcel of land. The property,
located in Minglanilla, Cebu, is covered by Tax Declaration No. 07764. In 1940 Cipriano had
taken possession of the land, cultivated it and diligently paid taxes thereon. In 1949, Dionisio
bought the adjacent parcel of land from Pilar Diaz. It was later found that he had encroached on
a small portion of lot. He was then summoned by Cipriano for a confrontation before
the barangay captain in 1952. Dionisio offered to buy the encroached portion, but Cipriano
refused the offer. In 1956, the latter gave Dionisio permission to temporarily build a house on
said portion, where it still stands.No action for ejectment was filed against Dionisio during the
lifetime of Cipriano, who eventually died on 18 May 1982. The latter’s son Hermogenes, one of
the petitioners herein who had cultivated the lot since 1972, took over. On 24 March 1992,
Dionisio died.
The present controversy arose in 1997. Petitioners went to the Office of the Municipal Assessor
to secure a copy of Tax Declaration No. 07764, as they intended to sell Lot to an interested
buyer. To their surprise, they were informed that Tax Declaration No. 07764 had been cancelled
and, in lieu thereof, Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued on 24 June 1996 in the name of
Dionisio. Apparently, respondents had caused the issuance of Tax Declaration No. 23959 by
submitting a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956 supposedly executed by Cipriano in
favor of Dionisio.
Petitioners summoned respondents before the Lupon Tagapamayapa, but the conciliation was
not successful. petitioners filed a Complaint against respondents for quieting of title, annulment
of deed of sale, cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 23959, recovery of possession and
ownership, damages, and payment of attorney’s fees. Petitioners alleged therein that the Deed
of Absolute Sale dated 27 June 1956 was a forgery. Respondents, in their Answer, alleged that
the assailed deed was a genuine document and asked for the payment of moral and exemplary
damages, and attorney’s fees, as counterclaims.
Issue:
Whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in favor of respondent is valid.
Held:
NO. It is true that notarized documents are accorded evidentiary weight as regards their due
execution. Nevertheless, while notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity, this
presumption is disputable. They can be contradicted by evidence that is clear, convincing, and
more than merely preponderant. Here, contrary to the conclusion of the CA, we find clear and
convincing evidence that is enough to overturn the presumption of regularity of the assailed
deed.
First, the document examiner determined that the signature of Cipriano in the assailed deed had
been forged. No issue has been raised about his expertise. The finding of the CA that he had
examined a mere machine copy of the assailed deed was erroneous.
Second, the RTC did not just rely on expert testimony in ruling that the signature was forged. A
scrutiny of the signature on the questioned deed of sale compared to the eleven (11) signatures
on the ten (10) standard documents there exists a glaring difference in the letter formation of
capital letters "C" in Cipriano and "T" in Trazona. The capital C in questioned signature, the
initial stroke stopped at the upper curve of the letter C while in the standard signatures, it
overlaps from the upper curve. In the word Trazona, the capital T in the questioned signature is
disconnected from the T bar to the body of the questioned signature whereas, in the standard
signatures, the capital T is connected. These discrepancies can easily be noticed by mere
physical appearance that the letters C and T were written.
Third, the existence of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated 11 April 1953 brings into question the
regularity of the assailed deed. This deed was never disputed by respondents at any stage of
the proceedings, and was in fact admitted by them in their Comments to Plaintiffs’ Additional
Formal Offer of Exhibits. Indeed, the RTC was correct in its observation that no one in complete
possession of one’s mental faculties would buy the same property twice from different owners.
Respondents never provided any explanation for this anomalous situation. In any case, it has
been established that Lot No. 5053-H is in the name of Cipriano, who bought it from the
government in 1940. Thus, only Cipriano had the right to dispose of the property, or portions
thereof.
Fourth, Cipriano had cultivated the property and paid taxes thereon since the time he acquired it
from the government, and even after its purported sale to Dionisio, until his death. Petitioners
continued paying the taxes thereon even after Cipriano had died. Respondents started paying
taxes on the property only after Tax Declaration No. 23959 was issued in Dionisio’s name in
1997.
Fifth, as admitted by Gorgonio himself, petitioners were the ones enjoying the fruits of the
property from 1960 until the present controversy. Again, it is incongruous for petitioners to enjoy
the fruits if respondents owned the property.
Sixth, as the RTC noted, there was an irregularity regarding the place of issuance of Cipriano’s
residence certificate indicated in the assailed deed, as compared with the residence certificates
of the other persons indicated on the same page of the notarial register.
Finally, when the record management analyst from the Bureau of Archives presented the
assailed deed, the paper was noted to be white, while its supposed contemporaries in the bunch
from where it was taken had turned yellow with age.

Heirs of Cipriano Trazona Vs Heirs of Canada

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Cipriano Trazona Vs Heirs of Canada

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Cipriano Trazona vs.

Heirs of Dionisio Cañada

You might also like