SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 168220. August 31, 2005]

SPS. RUDY PARAGAS and CORA ON !. PARAGAS, petitioners, vs. "RS. O# DO$%NADOR !A&ACANO, na'()*+ DO$%N%C, RODO&#O, NAN,--, and CYR%C, a)) su.na'(d !A&ACANO, .(/.(s(nt(d 0* NAN,--, !A&ACANO and A&#R,DO !A&ACANO, respondents. R,SO&U-%ON C"%CO1NA AR%O, J.+ This petition for review seeks to annul the Decision [1] dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5 of the Court of $ppeals in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+, affir-in. with -odification the + /arch 1000 Decision [2] of the (e.ional Trial Court 1(TC2, 3ranch "1, of Santia.o Cit!, Isa ela, in Civil Case No' "1%"414' The petition likewise seeks to annul the (esolution [3] dated 15 /a! "##5 den!in. petitioners6 -otion for reconsideration' The factual antecedents were s!nthesi7ed ! the Court of $ppeals in its decision' &re.orio 3alacano, -arried to 8oren7a Su-i.ca!, was the re.istered owner of 8ot 1155%E and 8ot 1155%F of the Su d' 9lan 9sd%4+#*" :located at 3aluarte, Santia.o Cit!, Isa ela; covered ! TCT No' T%1#4"05 and TCT No' T%1#4"0+ of the (e.istr! of Deeds of the 9rovince of Isa ela' &re.orio and 8oren7a had three children, na-el!< Do-in.o, Catalino and $lfredo, all surna-ed 3alacano' 8oren7a died on Dece- er 11, 1001' &re.orio, on the other hand, died on =ul! "+, 100)' 9rior to his death, &re.orio was ad-itted at the Veterans &eneral >ospital in 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a on =une "+, 100) and sta!ed there until =ul! 10, 100)' >e was transferred in the afternoon of =ul! 10, 100) to the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit! where he was confined until his death' &re.orio purportedl! sold on =ul! "", 100), or arel! a week prior to his death, a portion of 8ot 1155%E 1specificall! consistin. of 15,0"5 s@uare -eters fro- its total area of "",4*1 s@uare -eters2 and the whole 8ot 1155%F to the Spouses (ud! 1A(ud!B2 and Cora7on 9ara.as 1collectivel!, Athe Spouses 9ara.asB2 for the total consideration of 95##,###'##' This sale appeared in a deed of a solute sale notari7ed ! $tt!' $leCander V' de &u7-an, Notar! 9u lic for Santia.o Cit!, on the sa-e date D =ul! "", 100) D and witnessed ! $ntonio $.caoili 1A$ntonioB2 and =ulia &ara iles 1A=uliaB2' &re.orio6s certificates of title over 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were conse@uentl! cancelled and new certificates of title were issued in favor of the Spouses 9ara.as' The Spouses 9ara.as then sold on Octo er 15, 100) a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. of ),*1) s@uare -eters to Catalino for the total consideration of9)#,###'##' Do-in.o6s children 1Do-inic, (odolfo, Nanette and C!ric, all surna-ed 3alacanoEF2 filed on Octo er "", 100) a co-plaint for annul-ent of sale and partition a.ainst Catalino and the Spouses 9ara.as' The! essentiall! alle.ed D in askin. for the nullification of the deed of sale D that< 112 their

.randfather &re.orio could not have appeared efore the notar! pu lic on =ul! "", 100) at Santia.o Cit! ecause he was then confined at the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit!E 1"2 at the ti-e of the alle.ed eCecution of the deed of sale, &re.orio was seriousl! ill, in fact d!in. at that ti-e, which vitiated his consent to the disposal of the propert!E and 142 Catalino -anipulated the eCecution of the deed and prevailed upon the d!in. &re.orio to si.n his na-e on a paper the contents of which he never understood ecause of his serious condition' $lternativel!, the! alle.ed that assu-in. &re.orio was of sound and disposin. -ind, he could onl! transfer a half portion of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F as the other half elon.s to their .rand-other 8oren7a who predeceased &re.orio D the! clai-ed that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F for- part of the conGu.al partnership properties of &re.orio and 8oren7a' Finall!, the! alle.ed that the sale to the Spouses 9ara.as covers onl! a 5%hectare portion of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F leavin. a portion of ),*1) s@uare -eters that Catalino is threatenin. to dispose' The! asked for the nullification of the deed of sale eCecuted ! &re.orio and the partition of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' The! likewise asked for da-a.es' Instead of filin. their $nswer, the defendants Catalino and the Spouses 9ara.as -oved to dis-iss the co-plaint on the followin. .rounds< 112 the plaintiffs have no le.al capacit! % the Do-in.o6s children cannot file the case ecause Do-in.o is still alive, althou.h he has een a sent for a lon. ti-eE 1"2 an indispensa le part! is not i-pleaded D that &re.orio6s other son, $lfredo was not -ade a part! to the suitE and 142 the co-plaint states no cause of action D that Do-in.o6s children failed to alle.e a .round for the annul-ent of the deed of saleE the! did not cite an! -istake, violence, inti-idation, undue influence or fraud, ut -erel! alle.ed that &re.orio was seriousl! ill' Do-in.o6s children opposed this -otion' The lower court denied the -otion to dis-iss, ut directed the plaintiffs%appellees to a-end the co-plaint to include $lfredo as a part!' $lfredo was su se@uentl! declared as in default for his failure to file his $nswer to the Co-plaint' The defendants%appellees filed their $nswer with Counterclai- on /a! 5, 1005, den!in. the -aterial alle.ations of the co-plaint' $dditionall!, the! clai-ed that< 112 the deed of sale was actuall! eCecuted ! &re.orio on =ul! 10 1or 1+2, 100) and not =ul! "", 100)E 1"2 the Notar! 9u lic personall! went to the >ospital in 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a on =ul! 1+, 100) to notari7e the deed of sale alread! su Gect of a previousl! concluded covenant etween &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara.asE 142 at the ti-e &re.orio si.ned the deed, he was stron. and of sound and disposin. -indE 1*2 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were &re.orio6s separate capital and the inscription of 8oren7a6s na-e in the titles was Gust a description of &re.orio6s -arital statusE 152 the entire area of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were sold to the Spouses 9ara.as' The! interposed a counterclai- for da-a.es' $t the trial, the parties proceeded to prove their respective contentions' 9laintiff%appellant Nanette 3alacano testified to prove the -aterial alle.ations of their co-plaint' On &re.orio6s -edical condition, she declared that< 112 &re.orio, who was then +1 !ears old, weak and sick, was rou.ht to the hospital in 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a on =une "+, 100) and sta!ed there until the afternoon on =ul! 10, 100)E 1"2 thereafter, &re.orio, who ! then was weak and could no lon.er talk and whose condition had worsened, was transferred in the afternoon of =ul! 10, 100) to the Veterans /e-orial >ospital in ?ue7on Cit! where &re.orio died' She clai-ed that &re.orio could not have si.ned a deed of sale on =ul! 10, 100) ecause she sta!ed at the hospital the whole of that da! and saw no visitors' She likewise testified on their a.ree-ent for attorne!6s fees with their counsel and the liti.ation eCpenses the! incurred' $dditionall!, the plaintiffs%appellees presented in evidence &re.orio6s -edical records and his death certificate'

Defendants%appellees, on the other hand, presented as witnesses Notar! 9u lic de &u7-an and instru-ental witness $ntonio to prove &re.orio6s eCecution of the sale and the circu-stances under the deed was eCecuted' The! unifor-l! declared that< 112 on =ul! 1+, 100), the! went to the hospital in 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a D where &re.orio was confined D with (ud!E 1"2 $tt!' De &u7-an read and eCplained the contents of the deed to &re.orioE 142 &re.orio si.ned the deed after receivin. the -one! fro- (ud!E 1*2 =ulia and $ntonio si.ned the deed as witnesses' $dditionall!, $tt!' De &u7-an eCplained that the eCecution of the deed was -erel! a confir-ation of a previous a.ree-ent etween the Spouses 9ara.as and &re.orio that was concluded at least a -onth prior to &re.orio6s deathE that, in fact, &re.orio had previousl! asked hi- to prepare a deed that &re.orio eventuall! si.ned on =ul! 1+, 100)' >e also eCplained that the deed, which appeared to have een eCecuted on =ul! "", 100), was actuall! eCecuted on =ul! 1+, 100)E he notari7ed the deed and entered it in his re.ister onl! on =ul! "", 100)' >e clai-ed that he did not find it necessar! to state the precise date and place of eCecution 13a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a, instead of Santia.o Cit!2 of the deed of sale ecause the deed is -erel! a confir-ation of a previousl! a.reed contract etween &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara.as' >e likewise stated that of the stated 95##,###'## consideration in the deed, (ud! paid &re.orio 9*5#,###'## in the hospital ecause (ud! had previousl! paid &re.orio 95#,###'##' For his part, $ntonio added that he was asked ! (ud! to take pictures of &re.orio si.nin. the deed' >e also clai-ed that there was no entr! on the date when he si.nedE nor did he re-e- er readin. Santia.o Cit! as the place of eCecution of the deed' >e descri ed &re.orio as still stron. ut sickl!, who .ot up fro- the ed with =ulia6s help' Hitness for defendants%appellants 8uisa $.salda testified to prove that 8ot 1155%E was &re.orio6s separate propert!' She clai-ed that &re.orio6s father 18eon2 purchased a two%hectare lot fro- thein 105" while the other lot was purchased fro- her nei.h or' She also declared that &re.orio inherited these lands fro- his father 8eonE she does not know, however, &re.orio6s rothers6 share in the inheritance' Defendant%appellant Catalino also testified to corro orate the testi-on! of witness 8uisa $.saldaE he said that &re.orio told hi- that he 1&re.orio2 inherited 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F fro- his father 8eon' >e also stated that a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. of ),*1) s@uare -eters was sold to hi- ! the Spouses 9ara.as and that he will pa! the Spouses 9ara.as 95#,###'##, not as consideration for the return of the land ut for the transfer of the title to his na-e' $dditionall!, the defendants%appellants presented in evidence the pictures taken ! $ntonio when &re.orio alle.edl! si.ned the deed' [2] The lower court, after trial, rendered the decision declarin. null and void the deed of sale purportedl! eCecuted ! &re.orio 3alacano in favor of the spouses (ud! 9ara.as and Cora7on 9ara.as' In nullif!in. the deed of sale eCecuted ! &re.orio, the lower court initiall! noted that at the ti-e &re.orio eCecuted the deed, &re.orio was ill' The lower court6s reasonin. in declarin. the deed of sale null and void and this reasonin.6s pre-ises -a! e su--ari7ed as follows< 112 the deed of sale was i-properl! notari7edE thus it cannot e considered a pu lic docu-ent that is usuall! accorded the presu-ption of re.ularit!E 1"2 as a private docu-ent, the deed of sale6s due eCecution -ust e proved in accordance with Section "#, (ule 14" of the (evised (ules on Evidence either< 1a2 ! an!one who saw the docu-ent eCecuted or writtenE or 1 2 ! evidence of the .enuineness of the si.nature or handwritin. of the -akerE and 142 it was incu- ent upon the Spouses 9ara.as to prove the deed of sale6s due eCecution ut failed to do so D the lower court said that witness $ntonio $.caoili is not credi le while $tt!' $leCander De &u7-an is not relia le' [5] The lower court found the eCplanations of $tt!' De &u7-an re.ardin. the erroneous entries on the actual place and date of eCecution of the deed of sale as Gustifications for a lie' The lower court said D

The Court cannot i-a.ine an attorne! to undertake to travel to another province to notari7e a docu-ent when he -ust certainl! know, ein. a law!er and ! all -eans, not stupid, that he has no authorit! to notari7e a docu-ent in that province' The onl! lo.ical thin. that happened was that (ud! 9ara.as rou.ht the deed of sale to hi- on =ul! "", 100) alread! si.ned and re@uested hi- to notari7e the sa-e which he did, not knowin. that at that ti-e the vendor was alread! in a hospital and :sic; ?ue7on Cit!' Of course had he known, $tt!' De &u7-an would not have notari7ed the docu-ent' 3ut he trusted (ud! 9ara.as and -oreover, &re.orio 3alacano alread! infor-ed hipreviousl! in =une that he will sell his lands to 9ara.as' In addition :sic, 1,2 was o-itted; (ud! 9ara.as also told hi- that 3alacano received an advance of 95#,###'##' The intention to sell is not actual sellin.' Fro- the first week of =une when, accordin. to $tt!' De &u7-an, &re.orio 3alacano infor-ed hi- that he will sell his land to (ud! 9ara.as, enou.h ti-e elapsed to the ti-e he was rou.ht to the hospital on =une "+, 100)' >ad there een a -eetin. of the -inds etween &re.orio 3alacano and (ud! 9ara.as re.ardin. the sale, surel! &re.orio 3alacano would have i--ediatel! returned to the office of $tt!' De &u7-an to eCecute the deed of sale' >e did not until he was rou.ht to the hospital and dia.nosed to have liver cirrhosis' !(3aus( o4 t5( s(.6ousn(ss o4 56s 6))n(ss, 6t 6s not (7/(3t(d t5at G.(go.6o !a)a3ano 8ou)d 0( n(got6at6ng a 3ont.a3t o4 sa)(. Thus, (ud! 9ara.as ne.otiated with Catalino 3alacano, the son of &re.orio 3alacano with who- the latter was sta!in.' [6] The lower court also did not consider $ntonio $.caoili, petitioner (ud! 9ara.as6s driver, a convincin. witness, concludin. that he was tellin. a rehearsed stor!' The lower court said D The onl! portion of his testi-on! that is true is that he si.ned the docu-ent' >ow could the Court elieve that he rou.ht a ca-era with hi- Gust to take pictures of the si.nin.I If the purpose was to record the proceedin. for posterit!, wh! did he not take the picture of $tt!' De &u7-an when the latter was readin. and eCplainin. the docu-ent to &re.orio 3alacanoI Hh! did he not take the picture of oth &re.orio 3alacano and $tt!' de &u7-an while the old -an was si.nin. the docu-ent instead of takin. a picture of &re.orio 3alacano alone holdin. a all pen without even showin. the docu-ent ein. si.nedI Veril! there is a picture of a docu-ent ut onl! a hand with a all pen is shown with it' Hh!I Clearl! the driver $ntonio $.caoili -ust have onl! een asked ! (ud! 9ara.as to tell a concocted stor! which he hi-self would not dare tell in Court under oath' [9] The lower court likewise noted that petitioner (ud! 9ara.as did not testif! a out the si.nin. of the deed of sale' To the lower court, (ud!6s refusal or failure to testif! raises a lot of @uestions, such as< 112 was he 1(ud!2 afraid to divul.e the circu-stances of how he o tained the si.nature of &re.orio 3alacano, and 1"2 was he 1(ud!2 afraid to ad-it that he did not actuall! pa! the 95##,###'## indicated in the deed of sale as the price of the landI [8] The lower court also ruled that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were &re.orio6s and 8oren7a6s conGu.al partnership properties' The lower court found that these lots were ac@uired durin. the -arria.e ecause the certificates of title of these lots clearl! stated that the lots are re.istered in the na-e &re.orio, A-arried to 8oren7a Su-i.ca!'B Thus, the lower court concluded that the presu-ption of law 1under $rticle 1)# of the Civil Code of the 9hilippines2 that propert! ac@uired durin. the -arria.e is presu-ed to elon. to the conGu.al partnership full! applies to 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' [:] Thus, on + /arch 1000, the (TC, 3ranch "1, of Santia.o Cit!, Isa ela, rendered a Decision[10] in Civil Case No' "1%"414, the dispositive portion of which reads as follows< H>E(EFO(E in the li.ht of the fore.oin. considerations Gud.-ent is here ! rendered< 1' DEC8$(IN& as NJ88 and VOID the deed of sale purportedl! eCecuted ! &re.orio 3alacano in favor of the spouses (ud! 9ara.as and Cora7on 9ara.as

over lots 1155%E and 1155%F covered ! TCT Nos' T%1#4"05 and T%1#4"0+, respectivel!E "' O(DE(IN& the cancellation of TCT Nos' T%"5+#*" and T%"5+#*1 issued in the na-e of the spouses (ud! and Cora7on 9ara.as ! virtue of the deed of saleE and DEC8$(IN& the parcel of lands, lots 1155%E and 1155%F as part of the estate of the deceased spouses &re.orio 3alacano and 8oren7a 3alacano' [11] In the assailed Decision dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5, the Court of $ppeals affir-ed the Decision of the trial court, with the -odification that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F were adGud.ed as elon.in. to the estate of &re.orio 3alacano' The appellate court disposed as follows< H>E(EFO(E, pre-ises considered, the appeal is here ! DIS/ISSED' He $FFI(/ the appealed Decision for the reasons discussed a ove, with the /ODIFIC$TION that 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F elon. to the estate of &re.orio 3alacano' 8et a cop! of this Decision e furnished the Office of the 3ar Confidant for whatever action her Office -a! take a.ainst $tt!' De &u7-an'[12] 1E-phasis in the ori.inal'2 >erein petitioners6 -otion for reconsideration was -et with si-ilar lack of success when it was denied for lack of -erit ! the Court of $ppeals in its (esolution [13] dated 15 /a! "##5' >ence, this appeal via a petition for review where petitioners assi.n the followin. errors to the Court of $ppeals, viz< $' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S, HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION, SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN FINDIN& T>$T T>E(E H$S NO 9E(FECTED $ND 9$(TI$88K ELECJTED CONT($CT OF S$8E OVE( 8OTS 1155%E $ND 1155%F 9(IO( TO T>E SI&NIN& OF T>E DEED OF S$8E' 3' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S, HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION, SE(IOJS8K F$I8ED TO $99(ECI$TE T>E SI&NIFIC$NCE OF T>E =JDICI$8 $D/ISSION ON T>E $JT>ENTICITK $ND DJE ELECJTION OF T>E DEED OF S$8E /$DE 3K T>E (ES9ONDENTS DJ(IN& T>E 9(E%T(I$8 CONFE(ENCE' C' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S, HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION, 3$SED ITS CONC8JSION T>$T &(E&O(IO6S CONSENT TO T>E S$8E OF T>E 8OTS H$S $3SENT /E(E8K ON S9ECJ8$TIONS $ND SJ(/ISES' D' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S, HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION, SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN NOT (J8IN& ON T>E ISSJE OF (ES9ONDENTS6 8$CM OF 8E&$8 C$9$CITK TO SJE FO( NOT 3EIN& T>E 9(O9E( 9$(TIES IN INTE(EST' E' T>E >ONO($38E COJ(T OF $99E$8S, HIT> &($VE $3JSE OF DISC(ETION, SE(IOJS8K E((ED IN DIS/ISSIN& $TTK' $8EL$NDE( DE &JN/$N $ND $NTONIO $&C$OI8I $S NOT C(EDI38E HITNESSES'[12] $t otto- is the issue of whether or not the Court of $ppeals co--itted reversi le error in upholdin. the findin.s and conclusions of the trial court on the nullit! of the Deed of Sale purportedl! eCecuted etween petitioners and the late &re.orio 3alacano'

To start, we held in Blanco v. Quasha[15] that this Court is not a trier of facts' $s such, it is not its function to eCa-ine and deter-ine the wei.ht of the evidence supportin. the assailed decision' Factual findin.s of the Court of $ppeals, which are supported ! su stantial evidence, are indin., final and conclusive upon the Supre-e Court, [16] and carr! even -ore wei.ht when the said court affir-s the factual findin.s of the trial court' /oreover, well% entrenched is the prevailin. Gurisprudence that onl! errors of law and not of facts are reviewa le ! this Court in a petition for review on certiorari under (ule *5 of the (evised (ules of Court' The fore.oin. tenets in the case at ar appl! with .reater force to the petition under consideration ecause the factual findin.s ! the Court of $ppeals are in full a.ree-ent with that of the trial court' Specificall!, the Court of $ppeals, in affir-in. the trial court, found that there was no prior and perfected contract of sale that re-ained to e full! consu--ated' The appellate court eCplained % In support of their position, the defendants%appellants ar.ue that at least a -onth prior to &re.orio6s si.nin. of the deed, &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara.as alread! a.reed on the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%FE and that, in fact, this a.ree-ent was partiall! eCecuted ! (ud!6s pa!-ent to &re.orio of 95#,###'## efore &re.orio si.ned the deed at the hospital' In line with this position, defendants% appellants posit that &re.orio6s consent to the sale should e deter-ined, not at the ti-e &re.orio si.ned the deed of sale on =ul! 1+, 100), ut at the ti-e when he a.reed to sell the propert! in =une 100) or a -onth prior to the deed6s si.nin.E and in =une 100), &re.orio was of sound and disposin. -ind and his consent to the sale was in no wise vitiated at that ti-e' The defendants%appellants further ar.ue that the eCecution or si.nin. of the deed of sale, however, irre.ular it -i.ht have een, does not affect the validit! of the previousl! a.reed sale of the lots, as the eCecution or si.nin. of the deed is -erel! a for-ali7ation of a previousl! a.reed oral contract' ''' In the a sence of an! note, -e-orandu- or an! other written instru-ent evidencin. the alle.ed perfected contract of sale, we have to rel! on oral testi-onies, which in this case is that of $tt!' de &u7-an whose testi-on! on the alle.ed oral a.ree-ent -a! e su--ari7ed as follows< 112 that so-eti-e in the first week of =une 100), &re.orio re@uested hi- 1$tt!' de &u7-an2 to prepare a deed of sale of two lotsE 1"2 &re.orio ca-e to his fir-6s office in the -ornin. with a certain Do-in. 3alacano, then returned in the afternoon with (ud!E 142 he 1$tt!' de &u7-an2 asked &re.orio whether he reall! intends to sell the lotsE &re.orio confir-ed his intentionE 1*2 &re.orio and (ud! left the law office at 5<## p'-', leavin. the certificates of titleE 152 he prepared the deed a da! after (ud! and &re.orio ca-e' Hith re.ard to the alle.ed partial eCecution of this a.ree-ent, $tt!' de &u7-an said that he was told ! (ud! that there was alread! a partial pa!-ent of 95#,###'##' He do not consider $tt!' de &u7-an6s testi-on! sufficient evidence to esta lish the fact that there was a prior a.ree-ent etween &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara.as on the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F' This testi-on! does not conclusivel! esta lish the -eetin. of the -inds etween &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara.as on the price or consideration for the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F D $tt!' de &u7-an -erel! declared that he was asked ! &re.orio to prepare a deedE he did not clearl! narrate the details of this a.ree-ent' He cannot assu-e that &re.orio and the Spouses 9ara.as a.reed to a 95##,###'## consideration ased on $tt!' de &u7-an6s are assertion that &re.orio asked hi- to prepare a deed, as $tt!' de &u7-an was not personall! aware of the a.reed consideration in the sale of the lots, not ein. priv! to the parties6 a.ree-ent' To us, (ud! could have een a co-petent witness to testif! on the perfection of this prior contractE unfortunatel!, the defendants%appellants did not present (ud! as their witness'

He seriousl! dou t too the credi ilit! of $tt!' de &u7-an as a witness' He cannot rel! on his testi-on! ecause of his tendenc! to co--it falsit!' >e ad-itted in open court that while &re.orio si.ned the deed on =ul! 1+, 100) at 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a, he nevertheless did not reflect these -atters when he notari7ed the deedE instead he entered Santia.o Cit! and =ul! "", 100), as place and date of eCecution, respectivel!' To us, $tt!' de &u7-an6s propensit! to distort facts in the perfor-ance of his pu lic functions as a notar! pu lic, in utter disre.ard of the si.nificance of the act of notari7ation, seriousl! affects his credi ilit! as a witness in the present case' In fact, $tt!' de &u7-an6s act in falsif!in. the entries in his acknowled.-ent of the deed of sale could e the su Gect of ad-inistrative and disciplinar! action, a -atter that we however do not here decide' Si-ilarl!, there is no conclusive proof of the partial eCecution of the contract ecause the onl! evidence the plaintiffs%appellants presented to prove this clai- was $tt!' de &u7-an6s testi-on!, which is hearsa! and thus, has no pro ative value' $tt!' de &u7-an -erel! stated that (ud! told hi- that (ud! alread! .ave95#,###'## to &re.orio as partial pa!-ent of the purchase priceE $tt!' de &u7-an did not personall! see the pa!-ent ein. -ade' [19] 3ut, did &re.orio .ive an intelli.ent consent to the sale of 8ots 1155%E and 1155%F when he si.ned the deed of saleI The trial court as well as the appellate court found in the ne.ative' In the Court of $ppeals6 rationale% It is not disputed that when &re.orio si.ned the deed of sale, &re.orio was seriousl! ill, as he in fact died a week after the deed6s si.nin.' &re.orio died of co-plications caused ! cirrhosis of the liver' &re.orio6s death was neither sudden nor i--ediateE he fou.ht at least a -onth%lon. attle a.ainst the disease until he succu- ed to death on =ul! "", 100)' &iven that &re.orio purportedl! eCecuted a deed durin. the last sta.es of his attle a.ainst his disease, we seriousl! dou t whether &re.orio could have read, or full! understood, the contents of the docu-ents he si.ned or of the conse@uences of his act' He note in this re.ard that &re.orio was rou.ht to the Veteran6s >ospital at ?ue7on Cit! ecause his condition had worsened on or a out the ti-e the deed was alle.edl! si.ned' This transfer and fact of death not lon. after speak volu-es a out &re.orio6s condition at that ti-e' He likewise see no conclusive evidence that the contents of the deed were sufficientl! eCplained to &re.orio efore he affiCed his si.nature' The evidence the defendants%appellants offered to prove &re.orio6s consent to the sale consists of the testi-onies of $tt!' de &u7-an and $ntonio' $s discussed a ove, we do not find $tt!' de &u7-an a credi le witness' Thus, we full! concur with the heretofore%@uoted lower court6s evaluation of the testi-onies .iven ! $tt!' de &u7-an and $ntonio ecause this is an evaluation that the lower court was in a etter position to -ake' $dditionall!, the irre.ular and invalid notari7ation of the deed is a falsit! that raises dou ts on the re.ularit! of the transaction itself' Hhile the deed was indeed si.ned on =ul! 1+, 100) at 3a!o- on., Nueva Vi7ca!a, the deed states otherwise, as it shows that the deed was eCecuted on =ul! "", 100) at Santia.o Cit!' Hh! such falsit! was co--itted, and the circu-stances under which this falsit! was co--itted, speaks volu-e a out the re.ularit! and the validit! of the sale' He cannot ut consider the co--ission of this falsit!, with the indispensa le aid of $tt!' de &u7-an, an orchestrated atte-pt to le.iti-i7e a transaction that &re.orio did not intend to e indin. upon hinor on his ount!' $rticle "* of the Civil Code tells us that in all contractual, propert! or other relations, when one of the parties is at a disadvanta.e on account of his -oral dependence, i.norance, indi.ence, -ental weakness, tender a.e or other handicap, the courts -ust e vi.ilant for his protection' [18] 3ased on the fore.oin., the Court of $ppeals concluded that &re.orio6s consent to the sale of the lots was a sent, -akin. the contract null and void' Conse@uentl!, the spouses 9ara.as could

not have -ade a su se@uent transfer of the propert! to Catalino 3alacano' Indeed, nemo dat quod non habet. No od! can dispose of that which does not elon. to hi-' [1:] He likewise find to e in accord with the evidence on record the rulin. of the Court of $ppeals declarin. the properties in controvers! as paraphernal properties of &re.orio in the a sence of co-petent evidence on the eCact date of &re.orio6s ac@uisition of ownership of these lots' On the credi ilit! of witnesses, it is in rh!-e with reason to elieve the testi-onies of the witnesses for the co-plainants vis--vis those of the defendants' In the assess-ent of the credi ilit! of witnesses, we are .uided ! the followin. well%entrenched rules< 112 that evidence to e elieved -ust not onl! sprin. fro- the -outh of a credi le witness ut -ust itself e credi le, and 1"2 findin.s of facts and assess-ent of credi ilit! of witness are -atters est left to the trial court who had the front%line opportunit! to personall! evaluate the witnesses6 de-eanor, conduct, and ehavior while testif!in.'[20] In the case at ar, we a.ree in the trial court6s conclusion that petitioners6 star witness, $tt!' De &u7-an is far fro- ein. a credi le witness' Jnlike this Court, the trial court had the uni@ue opportunit! of o servin. the de-eanor of said witness' Thus, we affir- the trial court and the Court of $ppeals6 unifor- decision ased on the whole evidence in record holdin. the Deed of Sale in @uestion to e null and void' In Domingo v. Court of Appeals,[21] the Court declared as null and void the deed of sale therein inas-uch as the seller, at the ti-e of the eCecution of the alle.ed contract, was alread! of advanced a.e and senile' He held D ' ' ' She died an octo.enarian on /arch "#, 10)), arel! over a !ear when the deed was alle.edl! eCecuted on =anuar! "+, 10)5, ut efore copies of the deed were entered in the re.istr! alle.edl! on /a! 1) and =une 1#, 10))' The .eneral rule is that a person is not inco-petent to contract -erel! ecause of advanced !ears or ! reason of ph!sical infir-ities' >owever, when such a.e or infir-ities have i-paired the -ental faculties so as to prevent the person fro- properl!, intelli.entl!, and fir-l! protectin. her propert! ri.hts then she is undenia l! incapacitated' The unre utted testi-on! of Nosi-a Do-in.o shows that at the ti-e of the alle.ed eCecution of the deed, 9aulina was alread! incapacitated ph!sicall! and -entall!' She narrated that 9aulina pla!ed with her waste and urinated in ed' &iven these circu-stances, there is in our view sufficient reason to seriousl! dou t that she consented to the sale of and the price for her parcels of land' /oreover, there is no receipt to show that said price was paid to and received ! her' Thus, we are in a.ree-ent with the trial court6s findin. and conclusion on the -atter< ' ' ' In the case at ar, the Deed of Sale was alle.edl! si.ned ! &re.orio on his death ed in the hospital' &re.orio was an octo.enarian at the ti-e of the alle.ed eCecution of the contract and sufferin. fro- liver cirrhosis at that D circu-stances which raise .rave dou ts on his ph!sical and -ental capacit! to freel! consent to the contract' $ddin. to the du iet! of the purported sale and further olsterin. respondents6 clai- that their uncle Catalino, one of the children of the decedent, had a hand in the eCecution of the deed is the fact that on 15 Octo er 100), petitioners sold a portion of 8ot 1155%E consistin. of ),*1) s@uare -eters to Catalino for 9)#,###'##'[22] One need not stretch his i-a.ination to sur-ise that Catalino was in cahoots with petitioners in -aneuverin. the alle.ed sale' On the whole, we find no reversi le error on the part of the appellate court in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+ that would warrant the reversal thereof'
[23] ;",R,#OR,, the present petition is here ! DENIED' $ccordin.l!, the Decision and the [24] (esolution, dated 15 Fe ruar! "##5 and 15 /a! "##5, respectivel!, of the Court of $ppeals in C$%&'(' CV No' )*#*+ are here ! $FFI(/ED' No costs'

SO ORD,R,D. Puno !Chairman" Austria-#artinez Calle$o %r. and &inga ''. concur.