IMPROPER NOTARIZATION
Spouses Aguinaldo v. Torres, Jr., G.R. No. 225808, September 11, 2017 (817 Phil. 1179) (SECOND
DIVISION, PERLAS-BERNABE, J.)
Thus, central to the resolution of the instant controversy is the determination of the authenticity of the
1991 deed of sale which, however, is a question of fact rather than of law. [41] It bears to stress that it is not
the function of the Court to re-examine, winnow, and weigh anew the respective sets of evidence of the
parties,[42] absent a showing that they fall under certain recognized exceptions, [43] none of which are
present here.
At the outset, it should be pointed out that the 1991 deed of sale was improperly notarized, having been
signed by respondent and witness Bucapal in Makati City and by petitioners in the USA, but notarized in
Tanza, Cavite,[44] which is in violation of the notarial officer's duty to demand that the party
acknowledging a document must appear before him, [45] sign the document in his presence,[46] and affirm
the contents and truth of what are stated therein. [47] As aptly observed by the CA, the evidence on record
amply shows that Nelia could not have been in the Philippines at the time the said deed was signed. [48]
Although the improper notarization of the 1991 deed of sale did not affect the validity of the sale of the
subject properties to respondent, the same, however, rendered the said deed unregistrable, since
notarization is essential to the registrability of deeds and conveyances. [57] Bearing in mind that the legal
requirement that the sale of real property must appear in a public instrument is merely a coercive
means granted to the contracting parties to enable them to reciprocally compel the observance of the
prescribed form,[58] and considering that the existence of the sale of the subject properties in
respondent's favor had been duly established, the Court upholds the CA's directive for petitioners to
execute a registrable deed of conveyance in respondent's favor within thirty (30) days from finality of the
decision, in accordance with the prescribed form under Articles 1357 [59] and 1358[60] (1) of the Civil Code.
Notably, if petitioners fail to comply with this directive within the said period, respondent has the option
to file the proper motion before the court a quo to issue an order divesting petitioners' title to the subject
properties under the parameters of Section 10 (a), [61] Rule 39 of the Rules of Court.
[57]
See Section 12, Presidential Decree No. 1529 entitled "Property Registration Decree," approved on
June 11, 1978.
[58]
Chong v. CA, 554 Phil. 43, 62 (2007). See also San Miguel Properties, Inc. v. BF Homes, Inc., 765 Phil.
672, 708 (2015), citing Cenido v. Spouses Apacionado, 376 Phil. 801, 820 (1999).
[59]
Article 1357. If the law requires a document or other special form, as in the acts and contracts
enumerated in the following article [Article 1358], the contracting parties may compel each other to
observe that form, once the contract has been perfected. This right may be exercised simultaneously
with the action upon the contract. (Emphasis supplied)
[60]
Article 1358. The following must appear in a public document:
(1) Acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission, modification or
extinguishment of real rights over immovable property; sales of real property or of an interest therein are
governed by Articles 1403, No. 2, and 1405[.]
[61]
Section 10. Execution of judgments for specific act. — (a) Conveyance, delivery of deeds, or other
specific acts; vesting title. — If a judgment directs a party to execute a conveyance of land or personal
property, or to deliver deeds or other documents, or to perform any other specific act in connection
therewith, and the party fails to comply within the time specified, the court may direct the act to be done
at the cost of the disobedient party by some other person appointed by the court and the act when so
done shall have like effects as if done by the party. If real or personal property is situated within the
Philippines, the court in lieu of directing a conveyance thereof may by an order divest the title of any
party and vest it in others, which shall have the force and effect of a conveyance executed in due form
of law. (Emphases supplied)