_______________
* THIRD DIVISION.
361
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 1 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
the failure to observe the proper form does not render the
transaction invalid. The necessity of a public document for said
contracts is only for convenience; it is not essential for validity or
enforceability. Even a sale of real property, though not contained in
a public instrument or formal writing, is nevertheless valid and
binding, for even a verbal contract of sale or real estate produces
legal effects between the parties. Consequently, when there is a
defect in the notarization of a document, the clear and convincing
evidentiary standard originally attached to a duly-notarized
document is dispensed with, and the measure to test the validity of
such document is preponderance of evidence.
362
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 2 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
PERALTA, J.:
This is a Petition for Review questioning the Decision[1]
of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated November 26, 2010, as
well as its Resolution[2] dated March 17, 2011 in C.A.-G.R.
CV No. 88914. The CA reversed and set aside the
Decision[3] of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of San Pablo
City, Laguna, Branch 32, dated October 16, 2006 in Civil
Case No. SP-5882 (02), and consequently, upheld the
validity of the real estate mortgage entered into by
respondents spouses Leon C. Casti-
_______________
[1] Penned by Associate Justice Franchito N. Diamante, with
Associate Justices Josefina Guevara-Salonga and Mariflor P. Punzalan
Castillo, concurring; Rollo, pp. 42-63.
[2] Id., at pp. 65-67.
[3] CA Rollo, pp. 118-145.
363
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 3 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[4] Rollo, p. 15.
[5] Id., at p. 16.
364
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 4 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[6] Id., at p. 48.
[7] Id., at p. 43.
365
_______________
[8] Meneses v. Venturozo, G.R. No. 172196, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA
577, 585.
[9] CIVIL CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Art. 2085.
366
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 5 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[10] CA Rollo, p. 151.
[11] Francisco Lim v. Equitable PCI Bank (now known as Banco de Oro
Unibank, Inc.), G.R. No. 183918, January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 555.
[12] Rollo, p. 23.
[13] Baylon v. Atty. Almo, 578 Phil. 238, 242; 555 SCRA 248, 250
(2008).
367
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 6 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[14] CA Rollo, p. 176.
[15] The Heirs of Victorino Sarili v. Pedro F. Lagrosa, represented in
this act by his attorney-in-fact, Lourdes Labios Mojica, G.R. No. 193517,
January 15, 2014, 713 SCRA 726.
[16] Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, 486 Phil. 254, 268; 444 SCRA 61, 76
(2004).
[17] Supra note 8 at pp. 585-586.
[18] Tigno v. Spouses Aquino, supra.
[19] Supra note 8 at p. 586.
368
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 7 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[20] CA Rollo, p. 189.
[21] Id., at p. 190.
[22] Id., at p. 193.
[23] Id., at p. 200.
[24] Supra note 11.
369
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 8 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[25] PNB v. Jumamoy, G.R. No. 169901, August 3, 2011, 655 SCRA 55, 63.
[26] Supra note 11.
[27] Republic Act No. 8791, AN ACT PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF THE
OTHER PURPOSES.
370
_______________
[28] Emphasis ours.
[29] 544 Phil. 18, 27; 515 SCRA 79, 88 (2007).
371
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 9 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
_______________
[30] Development Bank of the Philippines v. Family Foods
Manufacturing Co., Ltd., 611 Phil. 843, 855; 594 SCRA 461, 473 (2009).
** Designated acting member per Special Order No. 1691 dated May
22, 2014, in view of the vacancy in the Third Division.
372
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 10 of 11
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 731 12/11/2016, 10:24 PM
http://central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000015858ef0bb5b0f5a4d6003600fb002c009e/p/ARL315/?username=Guest Page 11 of 11