Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 367 views

    Meneses Vs Venturozo - Legal Forms

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    This case involved a land dispute between Adelaida Meneses and Rosario Venturozo over a 2,109 square meter property. Venturozo claimed ownership based on a deed of absolute sale from 1973, tracing ownership back to a 1966 deed between Meneses and Basilio de Guzman. However, Meneses argued the 1966 deed was a forgery, as she never appeared before a notary and did not sell the land. The Court ruled in favor of Meneses, finding defects in the notarization of the 1966 deed that rendered it a private not a public document. Comparing signatures, the Court also found Meneses' signature on the 1966 deed was forged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Meneses Vs Venturozo - Legal Forms

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    367 views2 pages
    This case involved a land dispute between Adelaida Meneses and Rosario Venturozo over a 2,109 square meter property. Venturozo claimed ownership based on a deed of absolute sale from 1973, tracing ownership back to a 1966 deed between Meneses and Basilio de Guzman. However, Meneses argued the 1966 deed was a forgery, as she never appeared before a notary and did not sell the land. The Court ruled in favor of Meneses, finding defects in the notarization of the 1966 deed that rendered it a private not a public document. Comparing signatures, the Court also found Meneses' signature on the 1966 deed was forged.

    Original Title

    16. Meneses vs Venturozo - legal forms.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involved a land dispute between Adelaida Meneses and Rosario Venturozo over a 2,109 square meter property. Venturozo claimed ownership based on a deed of absolute sale from 1973, tracing ownership back to a 1966 deed between Meneses and Basilio de Guzman. However, Meneses argued the 1966 deed was a forgery, as she never appeared before a notary and did not sell the land. The Court ruled in favor of Meneses, finding defects in the notarization of the 1966 deed that rendered it a private not a public document. Comparing signatures, the Court also found Meneses' signature on the 1966 deed was forged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    367 views2 pages

    Meneses Vs Venturozo - Legal Forms

    Uploaded by

    jokuan
    This case involved a land dispute between Adelaida Meneses and Rosario Venturozo over a 2,109 square meter property. Venturozo claimed ownership based on a deed of absolute sale from 1973, tracing ownership back to a 1966 deed between Meneses and Basilio de Guzman. However, Meneses argued the 1966 deed was a forgery, as she never appeared before a notary and did not sell the land. The Court ruled in favor of Meneses, finding defects in the notarization of the 1966 deed that rendered it a private not a public document. Comparing signatures, the Court also found Meneses' signature on the 1966 deed was forged.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Meneses vs Venturozo, 659 SCRA 577

    Facts:
    On June 8, 1988, plaintiff Rosario G. Venturozo,
    respondent herein, filed a Complaint2 for ownership,
    possession x x x and damages in the Regional Trial
    Court (RTC) of Dagupan City against defendant
    Adelaida Meneses, petitioner herein, alleging that she
    (plaintiff) is the absolute owner of an untitled coconut
    land, containing an area of 2,109 square meters,
    situated at Embarcadero, Mangaldan, Pangasinan, and
    declared under Tax Declaration No. 239. Plaintiff
    alleged that 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.
    That the vendors, in turn, purchased the property from
    defendant as evidenced by a Deed of Absolute Sale4
    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.
    defendant Adelaida Meneses stated that plaintiff is the
    daughter of Basilio de Guzman, the vendee in the
    Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 that was
    purportedly executed by her (defendant) covering the
    subject property. Defendant alleged that she 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.
    Hence, this complaint arose.
    Issue: WoN the Deed of Absolute Sale is valid
    Held: No, it was a forged instrument as declared by
    the High Court,
    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. As notarized documents,
    Deeds of Absolute Sale carry evidentiary weight
    conferred upon them with respect to their due
    execution and enjoy the presumption of regularity
    which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear,
    strong and convincing as to exclude all controversy as
    to falsity. The presumptions that attach to notarized
    documents can be affirmed only so long as it is beyond
    dispute that the notarization was regular. A defective
    notarization will strip the document of its public
    character and reduce it to a private instrument.
    Consequently, when there is a defect in the
    notarization of a document, the clear and convincing
    evidentiary standard normally attached to a dulynotarized document is dispensed with, and the
    measure to test the validity of such document is
    preponderance of evidence.
    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. Moreover,

    the residence certificate of petitioner was issued to


    petitioner and then it was given to the Notary Public
    the day after the execution of the deed of sale and
    notarization; hence, the number of petitioners
    residence certificate and the date of issuance (June 21,
    1966) thereof was written on the Deed of Absolute
    Sale by the Notary Public on June 21, 1966, after the
    execution and notarization of the said deed on June 20,
    1966. Considering the defect in the notarization, the
    Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 cannot be
    considered a public document, but only a private
    document, and the evidentiary standard of its validity
    shall be based on preponderance of evidence.
    Section 20, Rule 132 of the Rules of Court provides
    that before any private document offered as authentic
    is received in evidence, its due execution and
    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.
    In regard to the genuineness of petitioners signature
    appearing on the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 20,
    1966, the Court agrees with the trial court that her

    signature therein is very much different from her


    specimen signatures and those appearing in the
    pleadings of other cases filed against her, even
    considering the difference of 17 years when the
    specimen signatures were made. Hence, the Court
    rules that petitioners signature on the Deed of
    Absolute Sale dated June 20, 1966 is a forgery.
    The Court agrees with petitioner that her admission
    was taken out of context, considering that in her
    Answer 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; that she never met
    the Notary Public, Attorney Abelardo Biala, and that
    she did not meet Basilio de Guzman on June 20,
    1966.42 The trial court found petitioner and her
    testimony to be credible, and declared the Deed of
    Sale dated June 20, 1966 null and void ab initio. These
    circumstances negate the said admission.

    You might also like