Edukasyon Online Your Online Education Portal

• Whether or not the CA erred in tackling matters relating to prescription of an action for reconveyance in an appealed land registration case.

• Whether or not the CA erred in ruling that the action for reconveyance based on an instrument whose execution was forged had prescribed.

• The CA erred in ruling on the basis of prescription of an action for reconveyance, when the original action was a petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim.

• An action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument does not prescribe.

• Granting the petition for review on certiorari.

• Reversing the CA's decision dated November 28, 2019, and Resolution dated October 9, 2020.

• Reinstating the RTC's decision dated May 24, 2018, which denied the petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim.

• Dismissing the petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim filed by the respondents.

• The annotation of adverse claim is a crucial step in protecting the interests of the rightful owner of a property.

• An action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument does not prescribe.

• The Court's decision emphasizes the importance of understanding the differences between an action for reconveyance and a petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim.

• Nemo dat quod non habet (No one gives what they do not have): This maxim is relevant to the case, as the respondents' title to the property is questionable due to the alleged forgery of the Deed of Donation.

• Nullum tempus occurrit regi (No time runs against the king): Although this maxim typically applies to the state, the concept of imprescriptibility is relevant to the case, as the Court ruled that an action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument does not prescribe.

• Forgery vitiates everything: This maxim is also relevant to the case, as the Court's ruling that the Deed of Donation is spurious and the signatures of the donors are forged renders the conveyances made after the donation null and void.

NOTE: 

I.

The honorable court a quo did not commit an error in law when it tackled matters relating to prescription of an action for reconveyance in an appealed land registration case.

In resolving the first issue, the Court underscores that among the matters raised by the Bagatsings in their Appellants' Brief before the court a quo was the issue on Statute of Limitations, with Rosita having asserted ownership only 24 years after the execution of the Deed of Donation. Thus, the court a quo was justified in tackling the same.

Nonetheless, it was erroneous for the CA to rule on the basis of prescription of an action for reconveyance. The Court stresses that the original action was a petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim filed by the Bagatsings. Tracing it further, what sparked this whole case was the Affidavit of Adverse Claim filed by Rosita. Yet, the court a quo resolved the case on the basis of the prescription of an action for reconveyance on the part of Rosita.

Although an action for reconveyance and the annotation of adverse claim are both reliefs available to the rightful owner of the land which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name of another, these two have different purposes. An action for reconveyance, on one hand, is for the purpose of compelling the transfer of the land to the rightful owner. On the other hand, the annotation of adverse claim is designed to protect the interest of a person over a real property by giving notice to third persons that there is a controversy over the ownership of the said property. Even more importantly, an action for reconveyance is an original action filed before the Regional Trial Courts or the Municipal Trial Courts, depending on the assessed value of the property involved, while an adverse claim is a type of involuntary dealing made through the filing of a sworn statement before the Register of Deeds.

Applying the foregoing, the Court finds more reason to rule that an action for reconveyance is entirely different from a petition for cancellation of adverse claim, which is the original action in this case. In its very obvious sense, the former may be filed with or without an adverse claim annotated on the land title, while the latter cannot be filed without an adverse claim.

Therefore, although the court a quo was justified in discussing prescription as it was one of the matters raised before it, a ruling on the basis of prescription of an action for reconveyance is unwarranted in this case.

II

The honorable court a quo committed an error in law when it ruled that the action for reconveyance based on an instrument whose execution was forged had prescribed.

Still ruling on prescription, the court a quo declared that the instant case was barred by prescription, having found that Rosita slept on her right to file an action for reconveyance within the 10-year period from the registration of the subject property in the name of Lazaro on November 20, 1998.

Again, at the risk of sounding repetitious, the appealed case was regarding the denied petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim, and not an action for reconveyance. Assuming arguendo that the case was an action for reconveyance, the Court finds that the same has not yet prescribed.

In Heirs of Arao v. Heirs of Eclipse, the Court earlier ruled that a complaint for cancellation of title based on the nullity of the Deed of Conveyance does not prescribe. Thus, it goes without saying that an action predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio is, likewise, imprescriptible.

Applying the foregoing points to the case at bar, Rosita's right to file an action for reconveyance does not prescribe, since, as aptly found by both the RTC and the court a quo, the signatures of spouses Zamora appearing on the Deed of Donation, from which the Bagatsings derive their title, were forged, making the conveyances made after the donation null and void.

As observed by the court a quo, there were distinct inconsistencies in the signature of Rosita as it appears on the Deed of Donation and on the Affidavit of Adverse Claim. The strokes of the signature found on the former are rounded and paused, whereas the signature on the latter appears to have thin and precise strokes. For the signature of her deceased husband, Jesus, the court a quo also found that the same was forged, based on the testimony of Rosita who was familiar with Jesus' signature based from documents that her husband executed when he was still alive in accordance with Section 22 of Rule 132 in the Rules of Evidence.

Thus, there is no doubt that the Deed of Donation is spurious and the signatures of the donors as they appear thereon are forged. As enunciated by the Court in a number of cases, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Henceforth, any and all transactions subsequent to the said donation, including the purported sale made by Lazaro to the Bagatsings, shall be, likewise, null and void. Therefore, an action for reconveyance predicated on these null and void conveyances shall be deemed imprescriptible. Additionally, being an imprescriptible right, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of the same. Hence, as correctly argued by Rosita, the court a quo committed an error in law when it ruled that the action for reconveyance based on an instrument whose execution was forged had prescribed.

Applying the above discussion to the instant case, the RTC is correct in denying the petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim filed by the Bagatsings. As fittingly argued by the Bagatsings, Rosita carries the burden of proof to show that her adverse claim over the subject property is meritorious. After a careful and thorough perusal of the records, the Court finds merit in Rosita's adverse claim, following the finding of forgery on the Deed of Donation from which the Bagatsings derive their title.

QUESTION AND ANSWER: