In Heirs of Ernesto Biona vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court affirmed the validity of a private, unnotarized deed of sale, emphasizing that notarization is not essential for a contract’s enforceability between parties. The Court also invoked the principle of laches, preventing the original landowners’ heirs from reclaiming the property after an unreasonable delay of over 25 years, during which the buyer continuously possessed and improved the land. This decision highlights the importance of timely asserting one’s rights and respects the contractual agreements made between parties, even if not formally notarized.

From Homestead to Dispute: When is a Handshake Deal Binding?

This case originated from a land dispute involving a parcel of agricultural land in Banga, Cotabato, originally awarded to Ernesto Biona under Homestead Patent No. V-840. After Ernesto Biona’s death, his wife, Soledad Biona, obtained a loan from Leopoldo Hilajos in 1960, using the land as security. When Soledad failed to repay the loan, she allegedly sold the property to Hilajos in 1961 through a handwritten, unnotarized deed of sale. Hilajos then took possession of the land, cultivated it, paid taxes, and introduced tenants under the government’s Land Reform Program. Years later, in 1985, the heirs of Ernesto Biona filed a complaint seeking to recover ownership and possession of the property, claiming that Hilajos had unlawfully deprived them of its use and enjoyment. The pivotal question was whether the unnotarized deed of sale was valid and could legally transfer ownership of the land to Hilajos.

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of the Biona heirs, finding that the signature of Soledad Biona on the deed of sale was not genuine and that the document, being unnotarized, did not convey any rights to Hilajos. The RTC also held that the heirs’ rights over the land had not prescribed. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed this decision, accepting the deed of sale as genuine and ruling that it effectively transferred ownership to Hilajos. The CA also invoked the principle of laches, stating that the Biona heirs had lost their right to recover the property due to their unreasonable delay in asserting their claim. The Supreme Court then reviewed the case to resolve the conflicting findings of the lower courts.

The Supreme Court sided with the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the private respondent had substantially proven that Soledad Biona indeed signed the deed of sale. It affirmed the appellate court’s appreciation of the evidence, in particular the testimony of the private respondent and his witness that they saw Soledad sign the deed of sale. The Supreme Court also noted that Soledad Biona herself did not testify to deny her signature on the document. This absence of denial was crucial in establishing the authenticity of the deed of sale.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court highlighted that all essential elements of a valid contract of sale were present in the case: consent, object, and cause. Soledad Biona agreed to sell the subject property to private respondent for a valuable consideration of P4,500.00. The Court also clarified that the absence of notarization does not invalidate the contract. Article 1358 of the Civil Code, which requires certain acts and contracts to appear in a public document, is only for convenience and not for validity or enforceability. The provision of Article 1358 of the Civil Code on the necessity of a public document is only for convenience, and not for validity or enforceability. The observance of which is only necessary to insure its efficacy, so that after the existence of said contract had been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the proper document. Therefore, the unnotarized deed of sale was valid, binding, and enforceable between the parties.

The Court also addressed the issue of laches. Laches is defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has either abandoned it or declined to assert it. In this case, the Biona heirs waited for over 25 years before asserting their claim to the property. During this time, Hilajos had continuously possessed and cultivated the land, paid taxes, and introduced tenants. The Court found that the heirs’ prolonged silence and inaction prejudiced Hilajos, warranting the application of the principle of laches. The Supreme Court quoted the Court of Appeals, Courts can not look with favor at parties who, by their silence, delay and inaction, knowingly induce another to spend time, effort and expense in cultivating the land, paying taxes and making improvements thereof for 30 long years, only to spring from ambush and claim title when the possessor’s efforts and the rise of land values offer an opportunity to make easy profit at his expense. Consequently, the Biona heirs were barred from recovering the property.

FAQs

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of upholding contractual obligations, even when agreements are not formalized through notarization. It also reinforces the principle that rights must be asserted within a reasonable time to prevent prejudice to others. By applying the doctrine of laches, the Court protected the rights of the possessor who had continuously and peacefully occupied the land for an extended period, fostering stability and fairness in land ownership disputes.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HEIRS OF ERNESTO BIONA, G.R. No. 105647, July 31, 2001