494 Phil. 528
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
Q: It appears, Mr. Acabal, that you have signed a document of sale with the defendant Leonardo Acabal on April 19, 1990, please tell the court whether you have really agreed to sell this property to the defendant on or before April 19, 1990?
A: We had some agreement but not about the selling of this property.
Q: What was your agreement with the defendant Leonardo Acabal?
A: Our agreement [was] that he will just rent.[14]x x x Q: Now, please tell the court how were you able to sign this document on April 19, 1990?A: I do not know why I signed that, that is why I am puzzled.
Q: Why, did you not read the contents of this document?A: I have not read that. I only happened to read the title of the Lease Contract.
Q: And do you recall who were the witnesses of the document which you signed in favor of Leonardo Acabal?
A: Employees of Judge Villegas of Bais City.
Q: Did you see them sign that document?
A: Yes, sir.Q: These signatures appearing in this document marked as Exhibit “C” for the plaintiff and Exhibit “1” for the defendant, please examine over (sic) these signatures if these were the signatures of these witnesses who signed this document?
A: These are not the signatures of the two women.
Q: And after signing this document on April 19, 1990, did you appear before a notary public to have this notarized?
A: No, I went home to San Carlos.[15]x x x Q: According to this document, you sell (sic) this property at P10,000.00, did you sell this property to Leonardo Acabal?
A: No, sir.Q: How about after April 19, 1990, did you receive this amount from Leonardo Acabal?
A: No, sir.[16]x x x Q: Now you said that on May 25, 1990, Leonardo Acabal did not pay the amount that he promised to you, what did you do of (sic) his refusal to pay that amount?Q: By the way, who is this Mellie Cadalin?
A: I went to Mr. [Carmelo] Mellie Cadalin because he was the one who prepared the papers and to ask Leonardo Acabal why he will not comply with our agreement.
A: Mellie Cadalin is also working in the sala of Judge Villegas.
Q: Who requested Mellie Cadalin to prepare this document?
A: Maybe it was Leonardo Acabal.Q: By the way, when for the first time did you talk to Leonardo Acabal regarding your agreement to lease this property to him?A: March 14, 1990, in San Carlos.Q: And what document did you give to him in order that that document will be prepared?
A: I have given (sic) some papers and contract of lease that I have signed to (sic) Mrs. Montenegro.[17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)x x x
Q: Now, Carmelo Cadalin [“Mellie”] also testified before this court that in fact he identified the document marked as Exhibit “C” for the plaintiff that what you executed on April 19, 1990 was a deed of sale and not a contract of lease, what can you say to that statement?
A: That is a lie.
Q: And what’s the truth then?A: What really (sic) I have signed was the document of lease contract.
Q: Now, can you explain to the Honorable Court why it so happened that on April 19, you were able to sign a deed of sale?
A: What I can see now is that perhaps those copies of the deed of sale were placed by Mr. Cadalin under the documents which I signed the lease contract. But why is it that it has already a deed of sale when what I have signed was only the lease of contract or the contract of lease.
Q: Now, Mr. Cadalin also stated before this court that he handed over to you this Deed of Sale marked as Exhibit “C” and according to him you read this document, what can you say to this statement?
A: Yes, there was a document that he gave me to read it (sic)but it was a contract of lease.
Q: How sure are you that what you signed on April 19, 1990 was really a contract of lease and not a contract of sale?
A: Because when I signed the contract of lease the witnesses that witnessed my signing the document were the employees of Judge Villegas and then I am now surprised why in the deed of sale which I purportedly signed are witnessed by Carmelo Cadalin and his wife Lacorte.[18] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Q: Mr. Cadalin, do you know the plaintiff Villaner Acabal?The complaint was later amended[27] to implead Villaner’s eight children as party plaintiffs, they being heirs of his deceased wife.
A: Yes, I know.[21]x x x Q: And I would like to ask you Mr. witness why do you know Villaner Acabal?
A: At the time that he went to our house together with Leonardo Acabal he requested me to prepare a deed of sale as regards to a sale of the property.[22]x x x Q: And after they requested you to prepare a document of sale, what did you do?
A: At first I refused to [do] it because I have so many works to do, but then they insisted so I prepared the deed.
Q: After you prepared the document, what did you do?A: After I prepared it I gave it to him so that he could read the same.
Q: When you say “him,” whom do you refer to?
A: Villaner Acabal.
Q: And did Villaner Acabal read the document you prepared?
A: Yes, he read it.
Q: And after reading it what did Villaner Acabal do?
A: He signed the document.Q: Showing to you a document which is marked Exhibit C for the plaintiff and Exhibit 1 for the defendants, please tell the Honorable Court what relation this document has to the document which you described earlier?COURT INTERPRETER:
Witness is confronted with the said document earlier marked as Exhibit C for the prosecution and Exhibit 1 for the defense.
A: Yes, this is the one.[23]x x x Q: Also stated in the document is the phrase “Signed in the presence of” and there is a number and then two signatures, could you please examine the document and say whether these signatures are familiar to you?
A: Yes, number one is my signature and number 2 is the signature of my wife as witness.[24]x x x
Q: After Villaner Acabal signed the document, what did Villaner Acabal do?
A: He was given the payment by Leonardo Acabal.[25]x x xQ: Aside from the document, deed of absolute sale, that you mentioned earlier that you prepared for Villaner Acabal and Leonardo Acabal, what other documents, if any, did you prepare for them?
A: Affidavit of non-tenancy and aggregate area.[26] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR WHEN IT RULED THAT RESPONDENT VILLANER ACABAL WAS DECEIVED INTO SIGNING THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE WHEN THE LATTER KNOWINGLY, FREELY AND VOLUNTARILY EXECUTED THE SAME IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER LEONARDO ACABAL.Procedurally, petitioners contend that the Court of Appeals erred when it failed to apply Section 8, Rule 8 of the Rules of Court, respondent Villaner having failed to deny under oath the genuineness and due execution of the April 19, 1990 Deed of Absolute Sale.II.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT RULED THAT THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DEED OF ABSOLUTE SALE IN THE AMOUNT OF TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,0000.00) WAS “UNUSUALLY LOW AND INADEQUATE,” ESPECIALLY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE LOCATION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.III.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT FAILED TO CONSIDER WHY RESPONDENT VILLANER ACABAL ONLY QUESTIONED THE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF PETITIONER RAMON NICOLAS IN COURT AFTER THE LATTER WAS IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FOR ALMOST THREE (3) YEARS.IV.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN LAW WHEN IT FAILED TO DECLARE PETITIONER RAMON NICOLAS AS A BUYER IN GOOD FAITH AS THE LATTER TOOK THE NECESSARY STEPS AN ORDINARY AND PRUDENT MAN WOULD HAVE TAKEN BEFORE BUYING THE QUESTIONED PROPERTY.V.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN RULING IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT VILLANER ACABAL WHEN THE LATTER DID NOT PRESENT A SINGLE WITNESS TO TESTIFY ON THE ALLEGED CONTRACT OF LEASE WHICH HE ALLEGEDLY SIGNED AND WITNESSED BY THE EMPLOYEES OF JUDGE VILLEGAS.VI.
THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN LAW WHEN IT RULED THAT RULE 8, SECTION 8 OF THE 1987 (sic) RULE (sic) OF CIVIL PROCEDURE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE AT BAR, CONTRARY TO THE RULING OF THE LOWER COURT.VII.
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED WHEN IT ORDERED PETITIONERS TO PAY RESPONDENTS “JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY BY WAY OF RENTAL THE SUM OF P10,000.00 PER YEAR FROM 1990 UP TO THE TIME THEY VACATE THE PREMISES.”[30]
On Villaner’s claim that two women employees of Judge Villegas signed as witnesses to the deed[39] but that the signatures appearing thereon are not those of said witnesses,[40] the same must be discredited in light of his unexplained failure to present such alleged women employee-witnesses.Q: And in the course of your notarization, can you remember each and every face that come (sic) to you for notarization?A: No, it is impossible.Q: In the case of Villaner Acabal which you have his document notarized (sic) in 1990, can you remember his face when he came to you?
A: No.Q: And can you also say, if a person who came to you having a document to be notarized and if he will appear again after a month, can you remember whether he was the one who came to you?
A: Not so much because everyday there are many people who appear with documents to be notarized, Q: So, it is safe to say that if Villaner Acabal came to you on April 25 or rather April 16, 1990 andhave (sic) his document notarized if he comes back in, say May 25, can you still remember if he was the one who came to you?
A: I cannot be sure but at least, there are times I can remember persons because he seems to be close to me already.Q: Is this Villaner close to you?
A: Because he has been frequenting the house/asking for a copy of the document.Q: So, he became close to you after you notarized the document?
A: Yes.[38] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
a) Only three (3) to four (4) hectares of the eighteen (18) were planted to sugar cane, the rest was never cultivated;Additionally, Ragay reported that one Anatolio Cabusog recently purchased a 6-hectare property adjoining that of the subject property for only P1,600.00[54] or P266.67 per hectare. Given that, had the 18-hectare subject property been sold at about the same time, it would have fetched the amount of P4,800.00,[55] hence, the P10,000.00 purchase price appearing in the questioned April 19, 1990 document is more than reasonable.
b) the soil is reddish and somewhat sandy in composition;
c) the soil contains so much limestones (rocks consisting mainly of calcium carbonate);
d) no part of the land in question is plain or flat, contrary to claim of the plaintiff that almost 10 hectares of the land in question is plain or flat;
e) some areas, eastward of and adjacent of the land in question (mistakenly to be owned by the defendant Nicolas) were planted to sugar cane by the owners – Kadusales;
f) the road going to the land in question (as claimed to be the road) is no longer passable because it has been abandoned and not maintained by anyone, thus it makes everything impossible for anybody to get and haul the sugar cane from the area;
g) the Commissioner has discovered some stockpiles of abandoned harvested sugar canes left to rot, along the side of the road, undelivered to the milling site because of the difficulty in bringing up trucks to the scene of the harvest;
h) the sugarcanes presently planted on the land in question at the time of the ocular inspection were three (3) feet in height and their structural built was thin or lean;
i) Most of the part of the 18 hectares is not planted or cultivated because the same is too rocky and not suitable for planting to sugarcane.[53]
ART. 1623. The right of legal pre-emption or redemption shall not be exercised except within thirty days from the notice in writing by the prospective vendor, or by the vendor, as the case may be. The deed of sale shall not be recorded in the Registry of Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given written notice thereof to all possible redemptioners.[90] Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, supra.
The right of redemption of co-owners excludes that of adjoining owners.
Under Article 1623, when a vendor sells real property, he must notify in writing his co-owners who may redeem the same within thirty (30) days from notice. The general rule is that written notice of the sale to all possible redemptioners is indispensable. The 30 day period which is a condition precedent to the exercise of the right of legal redemption is counted from the written notice. However, in Alonzo v. Intermediate Appellate Court (150 SCRA 259), this Court held that as an exception to the general rule the co-heirs who lived with the vendors in the same lot are deemed to have received actual notice of the sale. Alonzo is applicable in this case since the co-heirs are deemed to have received actual notice of the sale since they live in the same house as the vendor. Hence, they may no longer exercise their right of redemption.