ST. MARY'S FARM V. PRIMA REAL PROPERTIES (CIVIL)

In the instant case, it cannot readily be concluded that a particular signature appearing in those documents is not genuine for lack of proper identification and a more accurate comparison of the signatures. Mere allegation of forgery is not evidence and the burden of proof lies in the party making the allegation. Unfortunately, in the case at bar, the petitioner failed to discharge this burden.

Further challenging the due execution of the board resolution bearing the Secretary's Certificaiton, petitioner wants us to consider the same as inadmissible on the ground that Atty. Agcaoili did not appear before a notary public for notarization. We do nt agree, because in the past, we have already held that the non-appearance of the party before the notary public who notarized the deed does not necessarily nullify or render the parties' transaction void ab initio. However, the non-apperance of the party exposes the notary public to administrative liability which warrants sanction by the Court. This fact notwithstanding, we agree with the respondent court that it is not to overcome the presumption of the truthfulness of the statements contained in the board resolution. To overcome the presumption, there must be sufficient, clear, and convincing evidence as to exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the certificate. In the absence of such proof, the document must be upheld. notarization converts a private document into a public document, making it admissible in court without further proof of its authenticity.

On the basis of this notarized board resolution, respondent had every reason to rely on Agana's authority to sell the subject property. Undeniably then, the respondent is an innocent purchaser for value in good faith.

A BUYER FOR VALUE IN GOOD FAITH is one who buys property of another, without notice that some other person has a right to, or interest in such property and pays full and fair price for the same, at the time of such purchase, or before he has notice of the claim or interest of some other persons in the property. He buys the property with the well-founded belief that the person from whom he receives the thing had title to the property and capacity to convey it.

To prove good faith, a buyer of registered and titled land need only show the he relied on the face of the title to the property. He need not prove that he made further inquiry for he is nto obliged to explore beyond the four corners of the title. Such degree of proof of good faith, however, is sufficient only when the following conditions concur: first, the seller is the registered owner of the land; second, the latter is in possession thereof; and third, at the time of the sae, the buyer was nto aware of any claim or interest of some other person in the property, or of any defect or restriction in the title of the seller or in his capacity to convey title to the property.

All the conditions enumerated in the aforementioned case are present in the case at bar, enough for us to consider Prima as a buyer in good faith.

In sum, all things being equal, a person dealing with a seller who has in his possession title to the property but whose capacity to sell is restricted, qualifies as a buyer in good faith if he proves that he inquired into the title of the seller as well as into the latter's capacity to sell; and that in his inquiry, he relied on the notarial acknowledgment found in the seller's duly notarized special power of attorney. He need not prove anything more for it is already the function of the notarial acknowledgment to establish the appearance of the parties to the document, its due execution and authenticity.