This case has been cited 3 times or more.
|
2000-02-01 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| The trial court found the Deed of Assignment in favor of Martin and Narciso, predecessors of herein respondent St. Peter Memorial Park, spurious. The trial court dwelled on the fact that the Assignment of Certificate of Sale No. 923[6] executed by Antonio Cleofas in favor of Martin and Narciso, Deed No. 25874[7] executed by the Director of Lands in favor or Martin and Narciso conveying lot 719 to the latter and the deed of sale executed by Martin and Narciso in favor of Nazario Roque were all in the possession of respondent St. Peters and not with the proper custodians or repositories thereof and that the alleged assignment bears only a thumbmark of Antonio Cleofas although there is proof of his competence to sign the same.[8] | |||||
|
2000-02-01 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| It must be recalled that the decision of then Court of First Instance in May 1977 finding the Assignment of Sales Certificate No. 923 spurious, relied on the fact that said assignment and Deed of Conveyance No. 25874 were in the possession of respondent St. Peter Memorial Park, and were not in the custody of the government offices where they should ordinarily be.[15] This was sufficiently refuted by herein respondents during the second new trial where they presented evidence showing that the said assignment and Deed No. 25874 were properly filed in the Bureau of Land and confirmed by Risalina Concepcion, Chief of the Archives Division, Bureau of Records Management, and Norberto Vasquez, Jr., Deputy Register of Deeds, District III, Caloocan City. Respondents' failure to present evidence to show that the said documents were properly recorded in the books of the Register of Deeds can be attributed to the fact that there was a misrecording of the transactions on OCT No. 543 of the Tala Estate instead of OCT No. 614. When Aniceto Martin, who was also a grantee of two lots of the Tala Estate, presented the deed of assignment of lot 719, this was recorded in a sheet pertaining to OCT No. 543 instead of being inscribed in a sheet pertaining to OCT 614 covering the Piedad Estate. | |||||
|
2000-02-01 |
BUENA, J. |
||||
| It is important to stress too that the deed of assignment was duly notarized by Notary Public Vicente Garcia on July 15, 1921.[19] Also, Deed No. 25874 issued and executed by the Director of Lands on behalf of the government, granting and conveying lot no. 719 to Trino and Martin was notarized by Notary Public Jose Ma. Delgado.[20] Having been notarized, the documents have in their favor the presumption of regularity, and to contradict the same, there must be evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant.[21] Petitioners failed to rebut said presumption, hence the presumption stands. | |||||