SPOUSES MARIA BUTIONG and VILLAFRlA, DR. RUEL B.

SPOUSES MARIA FRANCISCO substituted by VILLAFRIA,

The antecedent facts are as follows:

On November 16, 1989, Pedro L. Rifioza died intestate, leaving several heirs, including his_ children with his first wife, respondents
Ma. Gracia R. Plazo and Ma. Fe Alaras, as well as several properties including a resort covered by Transfer Certificates of Title
(TCT) No. 51354 and No. 51355, each with an area of 351 square meters, and a family home, the land on which it stands is covered
by TCT Nos. 40807 and 40808, both located in Nasugbu, Batangas. 4

In their Amended Complaint for Judicial Partition with Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession 5 dated September 15, 1993,
respondents alleged that sometime in March 1991, they discovered that their co-heirs, Pedro’s second wife, Benita"Tenorio and
other children, had sold the subject properties to petitioners, spouses Francisco Villafria and Maria Butiong, who are now deceased
and substituted by their son, Dr. Ruel B. Villafria, without their knowledge and consent. When confronted about the sale, Benita
acknowledged the same, showing respondents a document she believed evidenced receipt of her share in the sale, which, however,
did not refer to any sort of sale but to a previous loan obtoiined by Pedro and Benita from a bank. 6 The document actually evidenced
receipt from Banco Silangan of the amount of ₱87, 352.62 releasing her and her late husband’s indebtedness therefrom. 7 Upon
inquiry, the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu informed respondents that he has no record of any transaction involving the subject
properties, giving them certified true copies of the titles to the same. When respondents went to the subject properties, they
discovered that 4 out of the 8 cottages in the resort had been demolished. They were not, however, able to enter as the premises
were padlocked.

Subsequently, respondents learned that on July 18, 1991, a notice of an extra-judicial settlement of estate of their late father was
published in a tabloid called Balita. Because of this, They caused the annotation of their adverse claims over the subject properties
before the Register of Deeds of Nasugbu and filed their complaint praying, among others, for the annulment of all documents
conveying the subject properties to the petitioners and certificates of title issued pursuant thereto. 8

In their Answer, 9 petitioners denied the allegations of the complaint on the groun_d of lack of personal knowledge and good faith in
acquiring the subject properties. In the course of his testimony during trial, petitioner Francisco further contended that what they
purchased was only the resort. 10 He also presented an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Renunciation, Repudiations and Waiver of
Rights and Sale which provides, among others, that respondents' co-heirs sold the family home to the spouses Rolando and Ma.
Cecilia Bondoc for Pl million as well as a Deed of Sale whereby Benita sold the resort to petitioners for ₱650, 000.00. 11

On October 1, 2001, the trial court nullified the transfer of the subject Properties to petitioners and spouses Bondoc due to
irregularities in the Documents of conveyance offered by petitioner’s .as well as the circumstances Surrounding the execution of the
same. Specifically, the Extra-Judicial Settlement was notarized by a notary public that was not duly commissioned as such on the
date it was executed. 12 The Deed of Sale was Undated, the date of the acknowledgment therein was left blank, and the Typewritten
name "Pedro Rifioza, Husband" on the left side of the document Was not signed. 13 The trial court also observed that both
documents were Never presented to the Office of the Register of Deeds for registration and That the titles to the subject properties
were still in the names of Pedro and His second wife Benita. In addition, the supposed notaries and buyers of the Subject properties
were not even presented as witnesses whom supposedly witnessed the signing and execution of the documents of
conveyance. 14 On The basis thereof, the triaI court ruled in favor of respondents, in its Judgment, the pertinent portions of its fallo
provide:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, judgment is Hereby rendered as follows:

xxxx

4. A) Declaring as a nullity the ~'Extra-Judicial Settlement with Renunciation, Repudiation and Waiver of Rights and Sale" (Ex. "l ",
Villafria) notarized on December 23, 1991 by Notary Public Antonio G. Malonzo of Manila, Doc. No. 190, Page No. 20, Book No. IXII,
Series of 1991. .

b) Declaring as a nullity the Deed of Absolute Sale (Ex. "2", Villafria), purportedly executed by Benita T.
Rifioza in favor of spouses Francisco Villafria and Maria Butiong, purportedly notarized by one Alfredo de
Guzman marked Doc. No. 1136, Page No. 141, and Book. No. XXX, Series of 1991.
 c) Ordering the forfeiture of any and all improvements introduced By defendants Francisco Villafria and
Maria Butiong in the properties Covered by TCT No. 40807, 40808, 51354 and 51355 of the Register of
Deeds for Nasugbu, Batangas. .

5. Ordering defendant Francisco Villafria and all persons, whose Occupancy within the premises of the four- (4)
parcels of land described in Par. 4-c above is derived from the rights and interest of defendant Villafria, to vacate its
premises and to deliver possession thereof, and all improvements existing thereon to plaintiffs, for and in behalf of the
estate of decedent Pedro L. Rifioza.

6. Declaring the plaintiffs and the defendants-heirs in the Amended Complaint to be the legitimate heirs of decedent
Pedro L. Rifioza, each in the capacity and degree established, as well as their direct successors-in interest, and
ordering the defendant Registrar of Deeds to issue the co1Tesponding titles in their names in the proportion
established by law, pro in division, in TCT Nos. 40807, 40808, 51354, 51355 and 40353 (after restoration) within ten
(10) days from finality of this Decision, 4pon payment of lawful fees, except TCT No. 40353, which shall be exempt
from all expenses for its restoration.

With no costs.

SO ORDERED. 15

On appeal, the CA affirmed the trial ‘court’s Judgment in its Decision 16 dated October 31, 2006 in the following wise:

The person before whom the resort deed was acknowledged, Alfredo de Guzman, was not commissioned as a notary public from
1989 to July 3, 1991, the date the certification was issued. Such being the case, the resort deed is not a public document and the
presumption of regularity accorded to public documents will not apply to the same. As laid down in Tigno, et al. v. Aquino, et al.:

The validity of a notarial certification necessarily derives from the authority of the notarial officer. If the notary public docs net have
the capacity to notarize a document, but does so anyway, then the document should be treated as A. Unnotarized. The rule may
strike as rather harsh, and perhaps may prove to be prejudicial to parties in good faith relying on the proferred authority of the notary
public or the person pretending to be one. Still, to admit otherwise would render merely officious the elaborate process devised by
this Court in order that a lawyer may receive a notarial commission. Without such a rule,

The notarization of a document by a duly appointed notary public will have the same legal effect as one accomplished by a non-
lawyer engaged in pretense. The notarization of a document carries considerable legal effect. Notarization of a private document
converts such document into a public one, and renders it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity. Thus,
notarization is not an empty routine; to the contrary, it engages public interest in a substantial degree and the protection of that
interest requires preventing those who are not qualified or authorized to act as notaries public from imposing upon the public and the
courts and administrative offices generally.

Parenthetically, the settlement/family home deed cannot be considered a public document. This is because the following cast doubt
on the document's authenticity, to wit: J.

1.) The date of its execution was not indicated;

2.) The amount of consideration was superimposed;

3.) It was not presented to the Registry of Deeds of Nasugbu, Batangas for annotation; and

4.) Not even the supposed notary public," Alfredo de Guzman, or the purported buyer, the Spouses Rolando and Ma.
Cecilia Bondoc, were presented as witnesses. · Concededly, the absence of notarization in the resort deed and/or the
lacking details in the settlement/family home deed did not necessarily invalidate the transactions evidenced by the
said documents. However, since the said deeds are private documents, perforce, their due execution and authenticity
becomes subject to the requirement of proof under the Rules on Evidence, Section 20, Rule 132 of which provides:
Sec. 20. Proof of private document. - Before any private. Document offered as authentic is received in evidence, its
due execution a"Q.d. authenticity must be proved either:

(a). By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or

(b) By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the maker.