Parenthetically the settlementfamily home deed cannot

administrative offices generally.
Parenthetically, the settlement/family home deed cannot be
considered a public document. This is because the following cast doubt
on the document’s authenticity, to wit:
The date of its execution was not indicated; 1.)
235
VOL. 765, AUGUST 5, 2015 235
Butiong vs. Plazo
The amount of consideration was superimposed; 2.)
It was not presented to the Registry of Deeds of Nasugbu, Batangas
for annotation; and 3.)
Not even the supposed notary public, Alfredo de Guzman, or the
purported buyer, the 4.) Spouses Rolando and Ma. Cecilia Bondoc,
were presented as witnesses.
Concededly, the absence of notarization in the resort deed and/or the
lacking details in the settlement/family home deed did not necessarily
invalidate the transactions evidenced by the said documents. However, since
the said deeds are private documents, perforce, their due execution and
authenticity becomes subject to the requirement of proof under
the Rules on Evidence , Section 20, Rule 132 of which provides:
20. Sec. Proof of private document.— Before any private document
offered as authentic is received in evidence, its due execution and
authenticity must be proved either:
By anyone who saw the document executed or written; or (a)
By evidence of the genuineness of the signature or handwriting of the
maker. (b)
The Complaining Heirs insist that the settlement/family
home and the resort deed are void as their signatures thereon
are forgeries as opposed to the Villafrias who profess the
deeds’ enforceability. After the Complaining Heirs
presented proofs in support of their claim that their
signatures were forged, the burden then fell upon the
Villafrias to disprove the same, or conversely, to prove the
authenticity and due execution of the said deeds. The
Villafrias failed in this regard .
As aforestated, the Villafrias did not present as witnesses
(a) the notary public who purportedly notarized the
questioned instrument, (b) the wit-
236
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Butiong vs. Plazo
nesses who appear[ed] in the instruments as eyewitnesses to the
signing, or (c) an expert to prove the authenticity and genuineness of all
the signatures appearing on the said instruments. Verily, the rule that,
proper foundation must be laid for the admission of documentary
evidence; that is, the identity and authenticity of the document must be
reasonably established as a prerequisite to its admission, was prudently
observed by the lower court when it refused to admit the
settlement/family home and the resort deeds as their veracity are
doubtful.
17
Aggrieved, petitioners, substituted by their son Ruel
Villafria, filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated November
24, 2006 raising the trial court’s lack of jurisdiction. It was

alleged that when the Complaint for Judicial Partition with
Annulment of Title and Recovery of Possession was filed,
there was yet no settlement of Pedro’s estate, determination as
to the nature thereof, nor was there an identification of the
number of legitimate heirs. As such, the trial court ruled on the
settlement of the intestate estate of Pedro in its ordinary
jurisdiction when the action filed was for Judicial Partition.