MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE, DON C. DELA CRUZ, JOSE C. DELA CRUZ, JR., SOLON C. DELA CRUZ, JAMELA CAVILE BACOLINAO, HENRIETTA GELLEGANI CAVILE, BERNARDO CAVILE, LAWRENCE CAVILE, FRANC…

Cavile versus Cavile

The Case

This is a petition for review of the decision of the Court of Appeals in a complaint for partition, accounting and damages over six parcels of land left by a common ascendant, Bernardo Cavili. The respondents, descendants of Bernardo's first and second marriages, sued the petitioners, descendants of his third marriage, claiming that the properties remained under a co-ownership that the petitioners had wrongfully appropriated as their own. The case matters because it tests two things every reviewee must know: whether a notarized deed of partition is a public document that proves itself, and whether a certificate against forum shopping signed by only one of many petitioners may be excused.

Procedural History

The respondents filed their complaint for partition in the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City, Branch 36. The petitioners were declared in default, and the trial court rendered a decision ordering the partition of the six parcels of land. On motion of Primitivo Cavili and Quirino Cavili, who had not been properly served with summons, the trial court held a new trial and allowed them to present evidence, including a Deed of Partition executed in April 1937. Giving weight to that document, the trial court rendered a second decision dismissing the complaint, finding that the heirs had already partitioned the properties. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court. The appellate court held that the Deed of Partition had been admitted without proof of its authenticity and due execution, that it could not be treated as an ancient document because the respondents had cast doubt on it, and it directed the trial court to appoint commissioners to effect the partition and accounting under Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review.

Facts

Bernardo Cavili contracted three marriages. With his first wife, Ines Dumat-ol, he had one child, Simplicia. With his second wife, Orfia Colalho, he had two children, Fortunato and Vevencia. With his third wife, Tranquilina Galon, he had three children, Castor, Susana and Benedicta. Throughout his lifetime he acquired six parcels of land, which became the subject of the case.

In October 1977, the descendants of the first and second marriages filed a complaint for partition against the descendants of the third marriage. They alleged that all of them were co-owners by inheritance; that Castor had taken possession as administrator for and on behalf of the co-owners; and that after Castor died, his children took possession but claimed the lands and their fruits as their own, refusing every demand for partition.

After default and a new trial, the trial court gave weight to a Deed of Partition dated April 1937, acknowledged before Notary Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book. The document divided the conjugal properties into two parts, one corresponding to Bernardo's share and the other to Tranquilina's share, and recited sales of portions to Castor Cavili and to Ulpiano Cavile. The respondents attacked the deed as a forgery, presenting witnesses who testified that Simplicia Cavili had resided in Mindanao from 1934 until 1947, and claiming that her supposed thumbprint was a mere inkblot. The Court of Appeals agreed with them and reversed.

Issues

• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the notarized Deed of Partition, a public document, could not be admitted in evidence because its genuineness and due execution had not been proved by the petitioners.
• Whether or not the Court of Appeals erred in not ruling that prescription had set in, the petitioners having occupied the properties openly and adversely for more than forty-five years without recognizing the co-ownership.
• Whether or not the petition should be denied because the certificate against forum shopping was signed by only one of the petitioners.

Applicable Provisions

The decision rests on the rule that documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents admissible without preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. The Court states the rule in these terms:

Documents acknowledged before notaries public are public documents which are admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to their authenticity and due execution.

This is the provision that decides the case, because it shifts the burden to the respondents to overcome the presumption of regularity by clear and convincing evidence.

The Court also applies the rule on the certificate against forum shopping, which it describes as follows:

The rule is that the certificate of non-forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners or plaintiffs in a case and the signing by only one of them is insufficient.

That rule governs the procedural challenge, which the Court resolves through substantial compliance rather than strict literalness.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled for the petitioners. The Deed of Partition was acknowledged before Notary Public Iluminado Golez and recorded in his notarial book, and so it is a public document that is admissible without preliminary proof of authenticity and due execution. It enjoys the presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it. To overcome that presumption, the evidence must be clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. The Court found the respondents' evidence insufficient. Even granting that Simplicia resided in Mindanao, that did not preclude her from traveling to Tolong, Negros Oriental, especially since her granddaughter admitted on cross examination that she was in perfect health and completely mobile, and that transportation was available. As for the thumbmark, a close examination showed visible grooves or lines, indicating an actual thumbprint and not a mere inkblot. The trial court was therefore correct in dismissing the complaint.

On the second issue, the Court found it unnecessary to discuss prescription, having already resolved the case on the partition.

On the procedural issue, the Court held that the signing by Thomas George Cavili, Senior, in behalf of all the other petitioners constituted substantial compliance. All the petitioners were relatives and co-owners sharing a common interest and a common defense, and they filed the petition as a collective raising only one argument. The Court added that the merits of the substantive aspects of the case may themselves be deemed a special circumstance for taking cognizance of the petition.

Doctrine

A document acknowledged before a notary public is a public document, admissible in evidence without necessity of preliminary proof as to its authenticity and due execution. It enjoys the presumption of regularity and is prima facie evidence of the facts stated in it, and that presumption may be overcome only by evidence that is clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant. Absent such evidence, the presumption must be upheld.

The certificate against forum shopping must be signed by all the petitioners, and signing by only one is insufficient; but the rules on forum shopping are not to be interpreted with absolute literalness, and substantial compliance is allowed where the petitioners share a common interest and a common defense, or where the merits of the case present a special circumstance.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the decision of the Court of Appeals was set aside and the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City dismissing the complaint for partition was reinstated.

Remember This

Memorize this line: a notarized document is a public document that proves itself, and only clear, convincing and more than merely preponderant evidence can overcome its presumption of regularity. Examiners use this case to test the self-proving character of notarized deeds and the substantial compliance exception to the certificate against forum shopping.