Chingkoe v. Chinkoe

 

Chingkoe v. Chinkoe

G.R. No. 244076

March 16, 2022

FACTS:

Faustino Chingkoe (Faustino) and his wife, Gloria Chingkoe (Gloria), were the registered owners of a parcel of land in Ayala Heights, Quezon City. Sometime in 1990, Faustino allowed his brother, Felix Chingkoe (Felix) to occupy the same property. Later on Tan Po Chu, their mother, requested Faustino to sign an undated deed of sale over the same property in favor of Felix while assuring that she will safe-keep the document and the reason for such request is to appease Felix who was becoming an alcoholic. However, Felix averred that he had been in possession of the property since 1989. After five (5) years of occupying the subject property, he purchased it from Faustino for P3,130,000.00 which prompted both parties to sign the Deed of Sale before a notary public, Atty. Reynaldo Calabio (Atty. Calabio). However, despite repeated demands by Felix, Faustino refused to surrender the Owner’s Duplicate of the TCT which prevented the former from having it transferred to his name. Eventually, Felix found out that Faustino mortgaged the same property to RCBC and this prompted the former to file a complaint for specific performance with damages to compel Faustino to turn over the TCT, and facilitate its transfer according to the Deed of Sale. The RTC ruled in favor of Felix stating that the testimony of Tan Po Chu failed to overturn the presumption of regularity of the notarized Deed of Sale and Atty. Calabio testified that both parties appeared before him when he notarized the same. The RTC modified its decision and directed Spouses Faustino and Gloria Chingkoe to surrender the owner’s duplicate copy of the TCT to Felix and Rosita. Upon appeal, the CA granted Faustino's appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the Deed of Sale is void on the ground that Felix failed to pay the consideration.

HELD:

No, the Deed of Sale is not void for the failure of Felix to pay the consideration. Failure to pay consideration is different from lack of consideration, actual payment of the obligation is not one of the three essential requisites of a valid contract. In other words, non-payment of an obligation does not render a contract void, in which case, the remedy of the injured party is simply demand fulfillment, or rescission of the contract under Article 1191 of the Civil Code. Settled is the rule that notarized documents enjoy the presumption of regularity which can be overturned only by clear and convincing evidence. The subject Deed of Sale states that, “receipt is hereby acknowledged by the VENDORS, to the full satisfaction, xxx.” Given that Faustino failed to overturn the presumption of regularity, the attestation of payment in the document sufficiently proves that Felix has fully paid the purchase price.