G.R. No. 172196. October 19, 2011.* ADELAIDA MENESES (deceased), substituted by her heir MARILYN M. CARBONEL-GARCIA, petitioner, vs. ROSARIO G. VENTUROZO, respondent.

 Remedial Law; Appeals; Rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court over appealed cases from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive; Rule admits exceptions, such as when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court.—The rule is that the jurisdiction of the Court over appealed cases from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. Thus, this Court is not duty-bound to analyze and weigh all over again the evidence already considered in the proceedings below. However, this rule admits exceptions, such as when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court like in this case.

Civil Law; Public Documents; Notarial Law; The necessity of a public document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as mandated by Article 1358 of the Civil Code, is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or enforceability; A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument; When there is a defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard normally attached to a duly-notarized document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of such document is preponderance of evidence.—The necessity of a public document for contracts which transmit or extinguish real rights over immovable property, as  

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of the Court of Appeals. 

CA declared respondent Rosario G. Venturozo the owner of the land in dispute, and ordered petitioner Adelaida Meneses to vacate and surrender her possession thereof to respondent.

Rosario G. Venturozo , alleging that she is the absolute owner of an untitled coconut land, containing an area of 2,109 square meters

she purchased the property from the spouses Basilio de Guzman and Crescencia Abad on January 31, 1973 as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale,

spouses purchased the property from ADELAIDA MENESES (deceased), substituted by her heir MARILYN M. CARBONEL-GARCIA as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale 4 dated June 20, 1966. 

Plaintiff alleged that she has been in possession of the land until May 1983 when defendant with some armed men grabbed possession of the land and refused to vacate despite repeated demands prompting her to engage the services of counsel.

Adelaida Meneses stated that he never signed any Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966, and that the said deed is a forgery. Defendant also alleged that she never appeared before any notary public, and she did not obtain a residence certificate; hence, her alleged sale of the subject property to Basilio de Guzman is null and void ab initio.

Consequently, the Deed of Absolute Sale dated January 31, 1973, executed by Basilio de Guzman in favor of plaintiff, covering the subject property, is likewise null and void.

Defendant stated that she acquired the subject property from her deceased father and she has been in possession of the land for more than 30 years in the concept of owner.

The issue before the trial court was whether the sale made by defendant Adelaida Meneses in favor of plaintiff’s father, Basilio de Guzman, was valid. 6

RTC: In favor of Adelaida

Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966, is very much different from her specimen signatures and those appearing in the records of Civil Case No. 1096 in the Municipal Trial Court of Mangaldan. It held that since there was no valid transfer of the property by Adelaida Meneses to Basilio de Guzman

CA: In favor of Rosario

Adelaida Meneses failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 was a forgery. Instead, she admitted on direct examination that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale was genuine,

The Court of Appeals also stated that mere variance of signatures cannot be considered as conclusive proof

Motion for Reconsideration - Denied

WHETHER THE DECISION OF TH E C O U R T O F A P P E A LS, W H I C H R E V E RSE D T H E D E C ISI O N O F T H E R E G I O N A L  T R I A L C O U R T , IS I N K E E P I N G W I T H B O T H L A W A N D J U R ISP R U D E N C E.1 6

A. I do not know this document, sir. Q. There is a signature over the name of the vendor Adelaida Meneses which was previously marked as Exhibit “6-a” and Exhibit “A-1” for the plaintiff, will you examine this signature, if do you (sic ) know this signature ? A. This is my signature, sir. 1 7 

Petitioner also contends that a comparison of the signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 and her specimen signatures, as well as her genuine signature on pleadings, were made by the trial court, and it ruled that her signature on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 was a forgery. She submits that the trial court’s evaluation of the credibility of witnesses and their testimonies is entitled to great respect, 2 0 and the appellate court should have given weight to the trial court’s findings that her signature on the said Deed of Absolute Sale was a forgery.

Court over appealed cases from the Court of Appeals is limited to the review and revision of errors of law allegedly committed by the appellate court, as its findings of fact are deemed conclusive. 2

However, this rule admits exceptions, 2 3 such as when the findings of fact of the Court of Appeals are contrary to the findings and conclusions of the trial court 2 4 like in this case.

A defective notarization will strip the document of its public character and reduce it to a private instrument. 3 0 Consequently, when there is a defect in the notarization of a document,

 Deed of Sale dated June 20, 1966 did not comply with the formalities required by law,

In the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966, the Notary Public signed his name as one of the two witnesses to the execution of the said deed; hence, there was actually only one witness thereto.

The Court agrees with petitioner that her admission was taken out of context, considering that in her Answer 3 9 to the Complaint, she stated that the alleged Deed of Sale purportedly executed by her in favor of Basilio de Guzman is a forgery; that she never signed the said Deed of Sale; that she did not appear personally before the Notary Public; and that she did not secure the residence certificate mentioned in the said Deed of Sale. She also testified that she never sold her land to Basilio de Guzman; 4 0 that she never met the Notary Public, Attorney Abelardo Biala, 4 1 and that she did not meet Basilio de Guzman on June 20, 1966. 4 2 The trial court found petitioner and her testimony to be credible,

 SC: In favor of Adelaida