Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
GRACIA
RIOZA-PLAZO AND MA. FE ALARAS
Facts:
On November 16, 1989 Pedro L. Rioza (Rioza)
died, leaving several heirs, which included respondents
Ma. Gracia R. Plazo (Plazo) and Ma. Fe R. Alaras
(Alaras).
Ruling
The CA held that the Destrezas could not just rely on the
deed of sale in their favor or on the TCT issued in their
names. They needed to present further evidence to prove
the authenticity and genuineness of that deed. Having
failed to do so, the CA theorized that it was justified in
annulling that deed of sale and the corresponding TCT.
Issue:
Rufina Eniceo and Maria Eniceo sold the Antipolo
property to respondent for P250,000. A certain Carmen 1.
WON the deed of sale should be annulled on the
Aldana delivered the owners duplicate copy of OCT No.
ground that the DENR Secretary gave his approval after
535 to respondent.
21 years from the date the deed of sale in favor of
respondent was executed. NO! it cannot be annulled.
On 1988, the Eniceo heirs registered with the (Registry of
Deeds) a Notice of Loss of the owners copy of OCT No.
535.
Held:
FORGERY
Petitioner alleges that the deed of sale is a forgery.
However, as correctly held by the CA, forgery can never
be presumed. The party alleging forgery is mandated to
prove it with clear and convincing evidence. Whoever
alleges forgery has the burden of proving it. In this case,
petitioner and the Eniceo heirs failed to discharge this
burden.
Equitable Mortgage
Petitioner contends that the deed of sale in favor of
respondent is an equitable mortgage because the Eniceo
heirs remained in possession of the Antipolo property
despite the execution of the deed of sale.
An equitable mortgage is one which although lacking in
some formality, or form or words, or other requisites
demanded by a statute, nevertheless reveals the intention
of the parties to charge real property as security for a
debt, and contains nothing impossible or contrary to
law. The essential requisites of an equitable mortgage
are:
1.
The parties entered into a contract denominated
as a contract of sale; and
2.
Their intention was to secure existing debt by way
of a mortgage.
The presumption of equitable mortgage under Article
1602 of the Civil Code is not conclusive. It may be
rebutted by competent and satisfactory proof of the
contrary
.
Apart from the fact that the Eniceo heirs remained in
possession of the Antipolo property, petitioner has failed
to substantiate its claim that the contract of sale
was intended to secure an existing debt by way of
mortgage. In fact, mere tolerated possession is not
enough to prove that the transaction was an equitable
mortgage.
Furthermore, petitioner has not shown any proof that the
Eniceo heirs were indebted to respondent. On the
contrary, the deed of sale executed in favor of respondent
was drafted clearly to convey that the Eniceo heirs sold
and transferred the Antipolo property to respondent. The
deed of sale even inserted a provision about defrayment
FACTS
ISSUE
HELD