Heirs of Tomas Arao vs. Heirs of Pedro Eclipse
Heirs of Tomas Arao vs. Heirs of Pedro Eclipse
Heirs of Tomas Arao vs. Heirs of Pedro Eclipse
FACTS:
Policarpio Eclipse owns a land known as Lot No. 1667 in Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan. In 1994, respondents (spouses Eclipse's successors-in-interest)
discovered that the land in question had been subject of a Deed of Absolute Sale
dated September 5, 1969 by which the registered owner, Policarpio, with the
consent of his wife Cecilia, sold the land in question to Tomas Arao (Tomas),
married to Tomasa Balubal. They averred that the sale was registered, resulting
in the cancellation of OCT No. 1546, which was replaced by Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. T-13798 in the name of Tomas, married to Terasa Balubal. On
June 30, 1977, Tomas executed a Deed of Absolute Sale of the subject land in
favor of his children Eulalia, Proceso and Felipa Arao, whose heirs are herein
petitioners. Eventually, Eulalia and Felipa registered the land in their names as
TCT No. T-39071. CAIHTE
Respondents maintained that the said Deed of Sale dated September 5, 1969
was a forgery because at the time of its execution, Policarpio and Cecilia were
already dead. Policarpio died on November 21, 1936, while Cecilia died on June
3, 1925. Respondents thus argued that on the basis of the said forged deed, the
subsequent transfer from Tomas to Eulalia and Felipa was likewise void. Hence,
they filed the present action for Nullity of a Deed of Absolute Sale and
Reconveyance of Lot No. 1667, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with
Damages against herein petitioners, the heirs of Tomas.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not the respondents are barred by laches from pursuing their
cause of action.
2. Whether or not the buyers are in good faith and for value.
RULING:
Article 1410 of the Civil Code states that an "action to declare the inexistence of
a void contract does not prescribe." an action that is predicated on the fact that
the conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio is imprescriptible. And
if the action is imprescriptible, it follows then that the defense of laches cannot be
invoked. Thus: