Valid thumb-marked document

This is a case involving a document containing only the thumb-mark, not the signature of one of the parties. The question raised here is the validity of said document.

The case pertained to two parcels of land titled on December 20, 1965, in the name of Julio (TCT No. 155768). The lots were occupied by seven families who paid rentals to Julio. Julio was then cohabiting with Cora, who already had a son, Cario, begotten by Pilo, the first man she cohabited with who died before the Second World War. On December 3, 1968, Julio then 65 years old, and Cora 67 years, finally decided to get married.

Two months later or on February 2, 1969, however, Julio died leaving no compulsory heirs except his wife Cora and his brother Tacio. The title to the lands still remained in Julio’s name but Cora took over the collection of rentals. Then on February 4, 1985 or 16 years later, while Cora was already on her death bed, Tacio’s children, Nelly and Vic accompanied by Atty. Franco and his wife visited Cora armed with a document entitled Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate and Absolute Sale. Atty. Franco read and explained the contents thereof to Cora in Tagalog and then Cora imprinted her thumb-mark on the bottom of said Deed. Tacio’s son Vic signed for and in his behalf by virtue of a Special Power of Attorney. Then Atty. Franco notarized the same.

In said document, Cora and Tacio adjudicated unto themselves the two lots still titled in Julio’s name with three-fourths going to Cora and one-fourth going to Tacio. The document also provided that both Cora and Tacio conveyed by way of absolute sale both their shares in the said lots in favor of Nelly in exchange for the amount of P107,750. Cora gave part of the proceeds to her son Cario. Two days later, Cora passed away. Thereafter rentals were collected by Nelly through her agent and later on by Vic when Nelly transferred residence to the United States.

More than two years after Cora’s death however or on July 30, 1987, her son Cario executed an “Affidavit of Adjudication by Sole heir of Estate of Deceased Person”, adjudicating unto himself the same parcels of land which had been subject of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement and Absolute Sale in favor of Nelly. Since he did not have the owner’s copy of the title, Cario asked the court for its reconstitution alleging that he could not locate the said TCT anymore. The court granted his petition, so a new owner’s duplicate title was issued in his name on April 18, 1988.

On May 31, 1988, Cario sold the two lots to the spouses Laura and Dado who were living only a block away from the lot. Thereafter, they obtained two separate titles to the lot in their names. But when they were trying to collect the rentals, the occupants filed a complaint for inter-pleader against the spouses and Nelly who both claimed ownership of the two lots.

While this case was pending, Nelly also filed a complaint for annulment of sale, cancellation of title and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Cario and the spouses Dado and Laura. Nelly argued that Cario knew of the sale made in her favor by his mother Cora and was even given part of the proceeds of the sale. She also averred that the spouses could not be considered buyers in good faith because they lived a block away and had knowledge that the two lots had been sold to her prior to Cora’s death.

For their part, Cario and the spouses claimed that the Extrajudicial Settlement and Sale in favor of Nelly could not have been executed by Cora because at that time Cora was already dying. They said that Cora’s hand was only held by Vic as she affixed her thumbmark on a blank sheet of paper. Cario also claimed that the property was originally bought by his mother but was registered in the name of Julio in keeping with the tradition.

The RTC however ruled in favor of Nelly declaring the Settlement of the Estate and Absolute Sale valid. It also declared the titles of Cario and the spouses null and void ordered them cancelled and TCT No. 155768 restored. Cario was also ordered to return the P100,000 paid by the spouses to him less expenses. Was the RTC correct?

Yes. The Extrajudicial Settlement with Absolute Sale executed by Cora and Tacio contains two contracts: the adjudication of the estate of Julio between Cora and Tacio as his compulsory heirs and the absolute sale of the adjudicated properties to Nelly. While contained in one document, the two are severable and can stand on their own as long as they have all the requisites of consent of the contracting parties, object certain and consideration or cause.

In this case, the invalidity of the document is premised on the fact that Cora was already weak and could not have voluntarily given her consent when it was executed. Cario and the spouses did not question Cora’s mental state at that time. They only focused on her physical weakness and argued that she could not appear before a Notary Public. Impliedly, therefore they admit that Cora was till of sound and disposing mind when she agreed to adjudicate and sell the lots. Besides, Atty. Franco who notarized the deed personally read to Cora the contents of said document and even translated its contents in Tagalog. Based on these facts, the validity of the disputed document should be upheld. Accordingly, Cario never had the right to sell the lots to the spouses Dado and Laura because he never owned them. Even before he could inherit any share from his mother, Cora, the latter had already sold them to Nelly (Baladad vs. Rublico and Spouses Yupano, G.R. 160743, August 4, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]