GR 168692; (December, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 168692 ; December 13, 2010
FRANCISCO TAYCO, substituted by LUCRESIA TAYCO and NOEL TAYCO, Petitioners, vs. Heirs Of Concepcion Tayco-Flores, namely: LUCELI F. DIAZ, RONELE F. BESA, MONELE FLORES, PERLA FLORES, RUPERTO FLORES, WENCESLAO FLORES, PURISIMA FLORES, and FELIPE FLORES, Respondents.
FACTS
Upon the death of spouses Fortunato Tayco and Diega Regalado, their children—Francisco Tayco, Concepcion Tayco-Flores, and Consolacion Tayco—inherited three parcels of land. In September 1972, Francisco and Consolacion executed a notarized Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement of the Estate of the Deceased Diega Regalado with Confirmation of Sale of Shares, transferring their shares to Concepcion. Later, on March 16, 1991, Concepcion and Consolacion executed a Confirmation of Quitclaim of Shares in Three (3) Parcels of Land. After Concepcion and Consolacion died, Francisco filed a case for nullity of documents and partition, claiming the deeds were void.
Francisco alleged the 1972 Deed was simulated only to enable Concepcion to mortgage the properties, a transaction that never materialized. He claimed Concepcion assured him the document was ineffective and that the 1991 Confirmation was executed without his knowledge to transfer titles to Concepcion. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in his favor, declaring both documents null and void and ordering the properties to be co-owned. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, upholding the validity of the documents and declaring the respondents as absolute owners.
ISSUE
Whether the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement with Confirmation of Sale of Shares and the subsequent Confirmation of Quitclaim are valid and effectively divested Francisco Tayco of his share in the co-owned properties.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the CA decision, upholding the validity of the documents. The Court emphasized that the 1972 Deed is a public document, duly notarized, and its genuineness and due execution were never disputed. As a public document, it carries the presumption of regularity and can only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence, which Francisco failed to provide. His claim of simulation, based on the alleged purpose of securing a loan, was unsupported by evidence and constituted a bare allegation.
The Court further ruled that the clear terms of the 1972 Deed show it was both an extrajudicial settlement and a confirmation of the sale of Francisco and Consolacion’s shares to Concepcion. There was no condition stated that the transfer was contingent upon a successful mortgage. The subsequent 1991 Confirmation, executed by Concepcion and Consolacion, merely reinforced the earlier transaction. The Court found no merit in Francisco’s claim of being unaware, as the documents were notarized and he failed to act against them for decades. Thus, the documents validly transferred ownership, and Francisco was no longer a co-owner entitled to partition.