THE ESTATE OF PEDRO C. GONZALES and HEIRS OF PEDRO C.
GONZALES, Petitioners, vs. THE HEIRS OF MARCOS PEREZ, Respondents. G.R. No.
169681, November 5, 2009.
“In their second assignment of error, petitioners question
the authenticity and due execution of the Deed of Sale executed by Pedro in
favor of Marcos. Petitioners also argue that even assuming that Pedro actually
executed the subject Deed of Sale, the same is not valid because it was not
notarized as required under the provisions of Articles 1403 and 1358 of the
Civil Code.
The Court is not persuaded.
The RTC, in its abbreviated discussion of the questions
raised before it, did not touch on the issue of whether the Deed of Sale
between Pedro and Marcos is authentic and duly executed. However, the CA, in
its presently assailed Decision, adequately discussed this issue and ruled as
follows:
x x x In the present case, We are convinced that
plaintiffs-appellants [herein respondents] have substantially proven that
Pedro, indeed, sold the subject property to Marcos for ₱9,378.75. The fact that no receipt was
presented to prove actual payment of consideration, in itself, the absence of
receipts, or any proof of consideration, would not be conclusive since
consideration is always presumed. Likewise, the categorical statement in the
trial court of Manuel P. Bernardo, one of the witnesses in the Deed of Sale,
that he himself saw Pedro sign such Deed lends credence. This was corroborated
by another witness, Guillermo Flores. Although the defendants-appellees [herein
petitioners] are assailing the genuineness of the signatures of their parents
on the said Deed, they presented no evidence of the genuine signatures of their
parents as would give this Court a chance to scrutinize and compare it with the
assailed signatures. Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not
equivalent to proof under our Rules.24
In the instant petition, petitioners would have us review the
factual determinations of the CA. However, settled is the rule that the Court
is not a trier of facts and only questions of law are the proper subject of a
petition for review on certiorari in this Court.25 While there are exceptions
to this rule,26 the Court finds that the instant case does not fall under any
of them. Hence, the Court sees no reason to disturb the findings of the CA,
which are supported by evidence on record.”
