February 28, 1990
FACTS:
Ruperto Sabesaje sued to recover ownership of a parcel of land, based on a private deed of absolute sale, allegedly executed by him and Segundo Dalion. But Dalion denied the fact of sale, contending that the document sued upon is fictitious, his signature being a forgery, and that subject land is conjugal property, which he and his wife acquired in 1960 from Saturnina Sabesaje as evidenced by the “Escritura de Venta Absoluta”.
The spouses denied Sabesaje’s claims that after executing a deed of sale, they had pleaded with Sabesaje to be allowed to administer the land because Dalion did not have any means of livelihood.
They admitted, however, administering since 1958, five parcels of land in Sogod, Southern Leyte, which belonged to Leonardo Sabesaje, grandfather of Sabesaje. They never received their agreed 10 percent and 15 percent — commission on the sales of copra and abaca, respectively. Sabesaje’s suit, they countered, was intended merely to harass, preempt and forestall Dalion’s threat to sue for these unpaid commissions.
The trial court upheld the validity of the sale. CA affirmed the trial court's ruling.
Hence, the instant petition.
ISSUE:
Whether the deed of sale is valid. – YES.
HELD:Petition is denied.
The trial court thus rightly and legally ordered Dalion to deliver to Sabesaje the parcel of land and to execute corresponding formal deed of conveyance in a public document
Article 1498: when the sale is made through a public instrument, the execution thereof is equivalent to the delivery of the thing. Delivery may either be actual (real) or constructive. Thus delivery of a parcel of land may be done by placing the vendee in control and possession of the land (real) or by embodying the sale in a public instrument (constructive).
Furth , the CA correctly upheld the validity of the sale on the basis of Secs. 21 and 23 of Rule 132 of the Revised Rules of Court.
People who witnessed the execution of subject deed positively testified on the authenticity and stated that the deed was signed by the signatories thereto.
Against defendant’s mere denial that he signed the document, the positive testimonies of the instrumental witnesses Ogsoc and Espina, aside from the testimony of the plaintiff, must prevail.
Defendant has affirmatively alleged forgery, but he never presented any witness or evidence to prove his claim of forgery. Mere denial of having signed does not suffice to show forgery.
Moreover, the signature was very similar with the admitted signatures and appear to be written by one person.
