TIGNO

v. AQUINO
November 25, 2004 | Tinga, J. | AKGL | Private Documents > Proof of Private Documents
CASE SUMMARY: Sps. Aquino and Bustria entered into a sales contract for a fishpond in Pangasinan. They
agreed that Bustria would have the right to repurchase the same property. However, when Tigno (i.e., an heir
of Bustria) tried to repurchase the same, Sps. Aquino refused. The latter claimed that the right to repurchase
was sold by Bustria to Sps. Aquino as evidenced by a Deed of Sale, witnessed by De Francia and notarized by
Judge Carino.
DOCTRINE: An invalidly notarized deed of sale is not a public document but is to be considered merely as a
private document, subject to the requirement of proof under Section 20, Rule 132. ROC. A Deed of Sale which
was validly notarized would still be classified as a private document where it was not properly acknowledged
but merely subscribed and sworn to by way of jurat.
NATURE: PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals.
FACTS:
• Sps. Estafino and Florentina Aquino filed a complaint for enforcement of contract and damages
against Isidro Bustria, involving the sale by Bustria to the Aquinos of fishpond located in Dasol,
Pangasinan. Bustria and the Aquinos entered into a compromise agreement, whereby Bustria agreed
to recognize the validity of the sale, and the Aquinos in turn agreed to grant to Bustria the right to
repurchase.
o CFI approved and incorporated the compromise agreement in a Decision.
• Zenaida B. Tigno, in substitution of her deceased father Isidro Bustria, attempted to repurchase the
property, but the Aquino opposed.
o Tigno filed a Motion for a Writ of Execution, which was likewise opposed by the Aquinos,
and denied by the RTC.
• Tigno filed an action for Revival of Judgment. The Aquinos filed an answer, wherein they alleged that
Bustria had sold his right to repurchase the property to them in a Deed of Sale.
o Among the witnesses presented by the Aquinos during trial were Jesus De Francia, the
instrumental witness to the deed of sale, and former Judge Franklin Cariñ o, who notarized
the same. These two witnesses testified as to the occasion of the execution and signing of the
Deed of Sale by Bustria.

[RTC] Refused to admit the Deed of Sale in evidence. Rendered a Decision in favor of Tigno.
[CA] Reversing and setting aside the RTC Decision.

ISSUE: W/N the Deed of Sale involving interest over real property, notarized by a person of questionable
capacity should be admitted in evidence? No, it is as a private document; thus authenticity and due execution
should be proved.

RULING:
1. There are palpable errors in Notarial certification1.
• The document is certified by way of a jurat instead of an acknowledgment.
o An acknowledgment is the act of one who has executed a deed in going before some
competent officer or court and declaring it to be his act or deed; while a jurat is that part of
an affidavit where the officer certifies that the same was sworn before him.

1 The notarial certification of the Deed of Sale reads as follows:
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES )
PROVINCE OF PANGASINAN ) S.S.
MUNICIPALITY OF ALAMINOS )

SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me this 17th day of October 1985 at Alaminos, Pangasinan both parties known to me to be the
same parties who executed the foregoing instrument.

FRANKLIN CARINj O
Ex-Officio Notary Public
Judge, M.T.C. Alaminos, Pangasinan
 o Under Section 127 of the Land Registration Act, the Deed of Sale should have been
acknowledged before a notary public.
• An even more substantial defect in the notarization pertains to the authority of Judge Franklin Cariñ o
to notarize the Deed of Sale.
o MTC and MCTC judges are empowered to perform the functions of notaries public ex officio.
But, the Court explicitly declared that municipal court judges such as Cariñ o may notarize
only documents connected with the exercise of their official duties. The Deed of Sale was not
connected with any official duties of Cariñ o, and there was no reason for him to notarize it.
o The possible ground for leniency is when there are no lawyers or notaries public that the
exception applies.
• We should deem the Deed of Sale as not having been notarized at all. The validity of a notarial
certification necessarily derives from the authority of the notarial officer.
2. Being a private document, the Deed of Sale is now subject to the requirement of proof under Sec. 20,
Rule 132.
• The Deed of Sale was offered in evidence as authentic by the Aquinos, who likewise insist that its
enforceability militates against Tigno’s claim. Correspondingly, the burden falls upon the Aquinos to
prove its authenticity and due execution.
• The most telling observation of the RTC relates to the fact that for the very first time respondents
alleged the existence of the Deed of Sale when they filed their answer to petitioner’s current action to
revive judgment. Prior to the initiation of the present action, Tigno had tried to operationalize and
implement the Compromise Agreement through two judicial means: consignation and execution of
judgment.
1) The Aquinos duly opposed these prior attempts of the petitioner to exercise the right to
repurchase, but they did not raise then the claim that such right to repurchase was already
extinguished by the Deed of Sale.
2) The only believable conclusion, as drawn by the RTC, was that the Deed of Sale had yet to be
created when petitioner moved in 1990 for consignation and execution of judgment.
3) No receipts were ever presented by the respondents to evidence actual payment of
consideration by them to Bustria, despite the allegation of the respondents that the amount
was covered by 7 receipts. Given the totality of the circumstances surrounding this case, the
absence of such proof further militates against the claims of the Aquinos.
4) Isidro Bustria, who would die in 1986, was already ninety-three (93) years old when he
allegedly signed the Deed of Sale in 1985. Still, the Aquinos asserted before the RTC that
Bustria traveled unaccompanied from his home in Dasol, Pangasinan, passing through two
towns to Alaminos, to execute the Deed of Sale.
§ It should be acknowledged as a matter of general assumption that persons of Bus-
tria’s age are typically sedentary and rarely so foolhardy as to insist on traveling
significant distances alone.
5) There are glaring differences as to the alleged signature of Bustria on the Deed of Sale and as
it otherwise appears on the judicial record.
3. The inconsistencies cited by the RTC were that De Francia testified that Judge Cariño himself prepared
and typed the Deed of Sale in his office, where the document was signed, while Judge Cariño testified
that he did not type the Deed of Sale since it was already prepared when the parties arrived at his office
for the signing.
• The Deed of Sale is a private document. Thus, not only the due execution of the document must be
proven but also its authenticity. The testimonies of Judge Cariñ o and De Francia now become
material not only to establish due execution, but also the authenticity of the Deed of Sale.
• Establishing the identity of the person who wrote the Deed of Sale would not ordinarily be necessary
to establish the validity of the transaction it covers. However, since it is the authenticity of the
document itself that is disputed, then the opposing testimonies on that point by the material
witnesses properly raises questions about the due execution of the document itself.

DISPOSITION: Petition granted, assailed decision reversed, decision of trial court reinstated.