_______________

25

Civil Code, arts. 1331-1344.

26

Id., art. 1331.

27

Id., art. 1338.

28

Rollo of G.R. No. 108472, p. 64.

369

VOL. 316, OCTOBER 8, 1999

369

Hemedes vs. Court of Appeals

It has been held by this Court that . . . mere
preponderance of evidence is not sufficient to overthrow a
certificate of a notary public to the effect that the grantor
executed a certain document and acknowledged the fact of
its execution before him. To accomplish this result, the
evidence must be so clear, strong and convincing as to
exclude all reasonable controversy as to the falsity of the
certificate, and when the29 evidence is conflicting, the
certificate will be upheld. In the present case, we hold
that private respondents have failed to produce clear,
strong, and convincing evidence to overcome the positive
value of the Deed of Conveyance of Unregistered Real
Property by Reversiona notarized document. The mere
denial of its execution by the donor will not suffice for the
purpose.
In upholding the deed of conveyance in favor of Maxima
Hemedes, we must concomitantly rule that Enrique D.
Hemedes and his transferee, Dominium, did not acquire
any rights over the subject property. Justa Kausapin
sought to transfer to her stepson exactly what she had
earlier transferred to Maxima Hemedesthe ownership of
the subject property pursuant to the first condition
stipulated in the deed of donation executed by her husband.
Thus, the donation in favor of Enrique D. Hemedes is null
and void for the purported object thereof did not exist at
the time of30 the transfer, having already been transferred to
his sister. Similarly, the sale of the subject property by
Enrique D. Hemedes to Dominium is also a nullity for the
latter cannot acquire more rights than its predecessor-ininterest and is definitely not an innocent purchaser for
value since Enrique D. Hemedes did not present any
certificate of title upon which it relied.
The declarations of real property by Enrique D.