November 19, 2018.*

G.R. No. 211425.
 
HEIRS OF TOMAS ARAO, represented by PROCESO
ARAO, EULALIA ARAO-MAGGAY, GABRIEL ARAO and
FELIPA A. DELELIS, petitioners,  vs.  HEIRS OF PEDRO
ECLIPSE, represented by BASILIO ECLIPSE; HEIRS OF
EUFEMIA ECLIPSE-PAGULAYAN, represented by
BASILIA P. CUARESMA; HEIRS OF HONORATO
ECLIPSE, represented by VICENTE ECLIPSE, JUANITA
E. AGAMATA and JIMMY ECLIPSE; and HEIRS OF
MARIA ECLIPSE-DAYAG, represented by OSMUNDO E.
DAYAG, respondents.

Civil Law; Contracts; Prescription; Article 1410 of the Civil

Code states that an “action to declare the inexistence of a void
contract does not prescribe.”—Article 1410 of the Civil Code states
that an “action to declare the inexistence of a void contract does
not prescribe.” The foregoing provision is echoed by this Court in
the case of Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v. Navarro, 526
SCRA 51 (2007), when it held that a complaint for cancellation of
title based on the nullity of the deed of conveyance does not
prescribe. In other words, 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: Laches is
a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and
not courts of equity. Equity, which has been aptly described as
“justice outside legality,” should be applied only in the absence of,
and never against, statutory law. Aequetas nunguam contravenit
legis. The positive mandate of Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code
conferring imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of the
inexistence of a contract should preempt and prevail over all
abstract arguments based only on equity. Certainly, laches cannot
be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal
right, and petitioners can validly vindicate their inheritance
despite the lapse of time.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

 
 
31

Same; Land Titles and Deeds; When the instrument presented

is forged, even if accompanied by the owner’s duplicate certificate
of title, the registered owner does not thereby lose his title, and
neither does the assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or
title to the property.—Notwithstanding the fact that petitioners
have in their favor the said certificates of title in their name, the
same is of no beneficial effect on them. Their title cannot be used
to validate the forgery or cure the void sale. Verily, when the
instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the registered owner does not
thereby lose his title, and neither does the assignee in the forged
deed acquire any right or title to the property. As held: Insofar as
a person who fraudulently obtained a property is concerned, the
registration of the property in said person’s name would not be
sufficient to vest in him or her the title to the property. A
certificate of title merely confirms or records title already existing
and vested. The indefeasibility of the Torrens title should not be
used as a means to perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of
real property. Good faith must concur with registration because,
otherwise, registration would be an exercise in futility. A Torrens
title does not furnish a shield for fraud, notwithstanding the long-
standing rule that registration is a constructive notice of title
binding upon the whole world. Needless to state, all subsequent
certificates of title, including petitioners’ titles, are also void
because of the legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher
than its source.
Same; Reconveyance; Words and Phrases; By definition, an
action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to
the rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously
registered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to
transfer or reconvey the land to him.—By definition, an action for
reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy granted to the
rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously
registered in the name of another, to compel the registered owner
to transfer or reconvey the land to him. The plaintiff must allege
and prove his ownership of the land in dispute and the
defendant’s erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration of the
property. In other words, the plaintiff must allege and prove his
ownership of the land in dispute and the defendant’s erroneous,
fraudulent or wrongful registration of the property. Clearly,
reconveyance is the remedy available only to the rightful owners.

 
 
32

Same; Land Registration; The principal purpose of

registration is merely to notify other persons not parties to a
contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered
into.—Indeed, registration is not a requirement for validity of the
contract as between the parties, for the effect of registration
serves chiefly to bind third persons. The principal purpose of
registration is merely to notify other persons not parties to a
contract that a transaction involving the property has been
entered into. Thus, it has been held that “registration in a public
registry creates constructive notice to the whole world.” Hence, if
the conveyance is not registered, it is not valid against any
person. But there are recognized exceptions. The conveyance is
still valid as to (1) the grantor; (2) the grantor’s heirs and
devisees; and (3) third persons having actual notice or knowledge
thereof. No doubt, respondents are the grantors’ heirs.
Petitioners, on the other hand, are third persons within the
contemplation of the registration rule. Apart from them being the
heirs of Tomas, they have actual notice/knowledge of the
conveyance. Hence, registration is not required to bind
respondents and petitioners.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and

resolution of the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
   Mac Paul B. Soriano for petitioners.

 
J. REYES, JR., J.:
 
The Case
 
Before Us is a Petition for Review on Certiorari1 filed
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court assailing the Decision2
dated June 7, 2013 and the Resolution3 dated January 30,
2014 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.-G.R. CV No.
93660, which 

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 10-27.

2 Penned by Associate Justice Pedro B. Corales, with Associate Justices
Sesinando E. Villon and Florito S. Macalino, concurring; id., at pp. 30-39.
3 Id., at pp. 41-43.
  
 
33

reversed and set aside the Decision4 dated April 23, 2009 of

the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan, Branch 5, in Civil Case No. 5892, for Declaration
of Nullity of a Deed of Absolute Sale and Reconveyance of
Lot No. 1667, Recovery of Ownership and Possession with
Damages.
 
The Facts
 
Subject of the controversy is a 5,587-square-meter land,
known as Lot No. 1667 situated in Ugac Sur, Tuguegarao
City, Cagayan, originally owned by Policarpio Eclipse
(Policarpio), married to Cecilia Errera (spouses Eclipse),
and covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
1546.5
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,
19696  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.7  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-137988  in the
name of Tomas, married to Terasa Balubal.9  On June 30,
1977, Tomas executed a Deed of Absolute Sale10  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.
 Respondents maintained that the said Deed of Sale
dated September 5, 1969 was a forgery because at the time
of its

_______________

4 Penned by RTC Judge Jezarene C. Aquino, id., at pp. 44-51.

5 Id., at p. 31.
6 Id., at p. 58.
7 Wife of Tomas is referred in the 1969 Deed as Tomasa.
8 Rollo, p. 59.
9 Wife of Tomas is referred in the TCT as Terasa.
10 Rollo, p. 75.

 
 
34

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 Damages11 against herein petitioners,
the heirs of Tomas.
Petitioners moved for the dismissal of the complaint on
the ground of prescription, arguing that actions for
annulment of title and reconveyance prescribe in 10
years.12  Their motion was denied in a Resolution13  dated
June 7, 2002.
Thus, in their Answer with Counterclaim,14  petitioners
countered respondents’ allegation by stating that the children of
spouses Eclipse, namely, Pedro, Eufemia, Honorato and Maria
Eclipse sold the subject land to Paulino Arao (Paulino), married to
15
Balbina Cancino, per Deed of Sale15 dated June 25, 1940. Paulino
and Balbina died intestate and without an heir except Paulino’s
brother, Tomas.16 On June 30, 1977, Tomas sold it to his children
Eulalia, Proceso and Felipa, and the latter registered the land in
their names as TCT No. T-39071.17 During trial, petitioners also
presented a Deed of Sale dated November 14, 1949 executed by a
certain Gavino Arao (Gavino), who was later identified as the son
of Paulino, in favor of Tomas.

_______________

11 Id., at pp. 53-56.

12 Id., at p. 32.
13 Id., at pp. 65-68, issued by RTC Judge Elmo M. Alameda.
14 Id., at pp. 69-73.
15 Id., at p. 74.
16 Id., at p. 46.
17 Id., at p. 76.

 
 
35

Ruling of the RTC

 
On April 23, 2009, the RTC rendered a Decision
dismissing the complaint and counterclaim on the ground
of laches. The RTC ruled that the Deed of Sale dated
September 5, 1969 in favor of Tomas was a forgery. Since
the said Deed was a forgery, it conferred no right in favor of
Tomas’ heirs. But despite the findings of nullity, the RTC
still dismissed the complaint as laches had set in. The RTC
ruled:

When Tomas registered the fake deed of sale (Exhibit “B”)

and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-1379318 (Exhibit “3”)
 was issued to him on 09 September 1969, the situation was
significantly altered. As of that date, 09 September 1969,
the plaintiffs were deemed to have constructive notice of the
cancellation of Original Certificate of Title No. 1546
(Exhibit “A”) and the issuance to Tomas Arao of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 13793 (Exhibit “3”)19 in his name.
Consequently, the plaintiffs’ cause of action to have Tomas’
title be annulled and to recover ownership and possession of
the land in question arose as of 09 September 1969.
Plaintiffs filed their complaint only on 12 October 2001. In
short, they slept on their rights for 32 years, 1 month and 4
days.20

 
Respondents moved for reconsideration, but the said
Motion was denied by the RTC in its Order21 dated May 18,
2009. Thus, respondents filed an appeal with the CA.
 
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
 
On June 7, 2013, the CA issued the now appealed
Decision22  finding that the doctrine of laches is not
applicable

_______________

18 Should be T-13798, as per document, id., at p. 59.

19 Id.
20 Id., at p. 49.
21 Id., at p. 52.
22 Id., at pp. 30-39.

 
 
36
since respondents’ cause of action is imprescriptible
pursuant to Article 1410 of the Civil Code. But nonetheless,
the CA upheld the RTC’s findings that there was forgery
and irregularities in the execution of the deed to Tomas,
such that it conveys no title either to Tomas or to his
children. The dispositive portion of the CA’s Decision reads
as follows:
 
WHEREFORE, the instant appeal is hereby
GRANTED. The April 23, 2009 Decision of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Tuguegarao City,
Cagayan is REVERSED and judgment is rendered:
 
1. Declaring null and void the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated September 5, 1969 being fictitious
and inexistent and without any legal force and
effect; and
2. Ordering the Heirs of Tomas Arao, particularly
Eulalia Arao-Maggay and Felipa Arao-Delelis, to
surrender possession of and reconvey to the
Heirs of Pedro Eclipse title to Lot No. 1667.23
 
Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration24  of the
aforesaid June 7, 2013 CA’s Decision. The said Motion was,
however, denied by the CA in a Resolution25 dated January
30, 2014.
Aggrieved, petitioners, on April 15, 2014, filed the instant
petition with this Court.
In their appeal, petitioners argued that respondents are
barred by laches from pursuing their cause of action
against the petitioners given their inaction for more than
30 years, despite being fully aware of the petitioners’
adverse possession and claim over the subject property.
They also averred that their claim of ownership is not
based on the forged Deed of Sale allegedly executed on
September 5, 1969, but on the
_______________

23 Id., at p. 38.
24 Id., at pp. 108-114.
25 Id., at pp. 41-43.

 
 
37

Deed of Sale entered into between the heirs of Policarpio

and Paulino on June 25, 1940. However, assuming that the
title of Tomas was fraudulent, petitioners maintained that
they nevertheless acquired a valid right and legal title
thereon being buyers in good faith and for value, pursuant
to the settled rule that a forged deed of sale may be a valid
source of legal rights. Finally, petitioners averred that
respondents are not entitled to the reconveyance of the
subject property since they failed to prove that they are the
owners of the lot in litigation and that petitioners’
registration of the property is erroneous, fraudulent and
wrongful. They argued that even assuming that
reconveyance is proper, the 10-year prescriptive period to
institute the same had long prescribed.
 
The Issues
 
From the arguments set forth by petitioners, three
essential Issues were raised:
 
1. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN FINDING THAT LACHES IS NOT
APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE.
2. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
ERRED IN DISREGARDING THE DEED OF SALE
DATED JUNE 25, 1940 ENTERED INTO BETWEEN
 THE HEIRS OF POLICARPIO ECLIPSE AND
PAULINO ARAO.
3. WHETHER OR NOT THE COURT OF APPEALS
COMMITTED A REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT
DECLARING PETITIONERS HEREIN AS BUYERS
IN GOOD FAITH AND FOR VALUE.26

_______________

26 Id., at p. 15.

 
 
38

The Court’s Ruling

 
Before resolving whether laches has set in, it is
important to determine first how and by what contract
Tomas (petitioners’ predecessor-in-interest) acquired the
title of the subject lot in his name. This is because if the
assailed contract is void ab initio, then laches will not
apply.
Article 1410 of the Civil Code states that an “action to
declare the inexistence of a void contract does not
prescribe.” The foregoing provision is echoed by this Court
in the case of Fil-Estate Golf and Development, Inc. v.
Navarro27 when it held that a complaint for cancellation of
title based on the nullity of the deed of conveyance does not
prescribe. In other words, 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:
 Laches  is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically
courts of law and not courts of equity. Equity, which has
been aptly described as “justice outside legality,” should be
applied only in the absence of, and never against, statutory
law.  Aequetas nunguam contravenit legis. The positive
mandate of Art. 1410 of the New Civil Code conferring
imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of the
inexistence of a contract should preempt and prevail over
all abstract arguments based only on equity.
Certainly, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement
of an imprescriptible legal right, and petitioners can validly
vindicate their inheritance despite the lapse of time.28

 
Records of the case reveal three different Deeds of
Absolute Sale which directly and indirectly conveyed title
to Tomas over the property in question.

_______________

27 553 Phil. 48, 56; 526 SCRA 51, 57 (2007).

28 Heirs of Romana Ingjug-Tiro v. Casals, 415 Phil. 665, 673-674; 363
SCRA 435, 442-443 (2001).

 
 
39

First. The September 5, 1969 Deed of Absolute Sale

purportedly executed by the original owner, Policarpio, in
favor of Tomas;
Second. The November 14, 1949 Deed of Sale executed
by Gavino, (the son of Tomas’ brother, Paulino) in favor of
Tomas; and
Third. The June 25, 1940 Deed of Sale executed by the
children of Policarpio, namely, Pedro, Eufemia, Honorato
and Maria, in favor of Paulino, who, upon his death,
transmitted, by operation of law, the subject property to his
sole heir and brother, Tomas.
Respondents’ present action is based on the nullity of
the September 5, 1969 Deed of Absolute Sale.
When this 1969 Deed of Sale was executed, the seller
thereof, Policarpio, was already deceased, having died on
November 21, 1936. It is settled that the death of a person
terminates contractual capacity.29 If any one party to a
supposed contract was already dead at the time of its
execution, such contract is undoubtedly simulated and
false, and, therefore, null and void by reason of its having
been made after the death of the party who appears as one
of the contracting parties therein.30 There is no doubt,
therefore, that this 1969 Deed of Sale is spurious and the
signature of the seller appearing thereon is forged. Suffice
it to say, a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title.31
As a forged deed is null and void, and conveys no title, all
the transactions subsequent to the alleged sale are likewise
void.32
Since the Deed of Absolute Sale dated September 5,
1969 is null and void, it follows then that all the TCTs
which were

_______________

29 Id., at p. 673; p. 442.

30 Id.
31 Heirs of de Vela v. Tolentino, G.R. No. 200058, November 6, 2017
(Notice).
32 Pabalan v. Santarin, 441 Phil. 462, 471; 393 SCRA 203, 209 (2002).

 
 
40
issued by virtue of the said spurious and forged document
are also null and void.33
It was the registration of this forged Deed of Absolute
Sale dated September 5, 1969 that caused the cancellation
of OCT No. 1546 in the name of Policarpio and the issuance
of the new title — TCT No. T-13798 in the name of Tomas,
and subsequently, TCT No. T-39071 in the name of Tomas’
children, petitioners’ predecessors-in-interest. As admitted
by petitioners, it was the 1969 Deed of Absolute Sale which
they used to facilitate the transfer of the Certificates in the
name of Tomas and, thereafter, in the name of their
predecessors-in-interest, in order to cut short the circuitous
process of registration.
Notwithstanding the fact that petitioners have in their
favor the said certificates of title in their name, the same is
of no beneficial effect on them. Their title cannot be used to
validate the forgery or cure the void sale.34  Verily, when
the instrument presented is forged, even if accompanied by
the owner’s duplicate certificate of title, the registered
owner does not thereby lose his title, and neither does the
assignee in the forged deed acquire any right or title to the
property.35 As held:

Insofar as a person who fraudulently obtained a property

is concerned, the registration of the property in said
person’s name would not be sufficient to vest in him or her
the title to the property. A certificate of title merely
confirms or records title already existing and vested. The
indefeasibility of the Torrens title should not be used as a
means to perpetrate fraud against the rightful owner of real
property. Good faith must concur with 

_______________

33 See also Gambito v. Bacena, G.R. No. 225929, January 24, 2018, 853
SCRA 93 (Resolution).
34 Romero v. Singson, 765 Phil. 515, 532; 764 SCRA 620, 639 (2015).
 35 Dizon v. Beltran, 803 Phil. 608, 627; 815 SCRA 47, 69 (2017).

 
 
41

registration because, otherwise, registration would be an

exercise in futility. A Torrens title does not furnish a shield
for fraud, notwithstanding the long-standing rule that
registration is a constructive notice of title binding upon the
whole world.36

 
Needless to state, all subsequent certificates of title,
including petitioners’ titles, are also void because of the
legal truism that the spring cannot rise higher than its
source.37
Petitioners’ invocation of good faith is likewise
unavailing. Petitioners admitted that they knew that the
1969 Deed of Sale was a forgery.38 They justified resort to it
(1969 Deed of Sale) not for the purpose of claiming title to
the land, but only to cut short the circuitous process of
transferring the title of the property from the original
registered owner to Tomas, considering that the genuine
Deed of Sale was executed as early as 1940 and Tomas is
the fourth transferee of the property from the original
owner. This candid admission on their part negates their
claim of good faith. Good faith consists in the belief of the
possessors that the persons from whom they received the
thing are its rightful owners who could convey their
title.39 Petitioners’ claim of good faith is debunked by their
knowledge that the registration of the subject land in favor
of their predecessor is procured on the basis of a fraudulent
deed.
Going back to the preliminary issue of whether laches
has set in, the answer is in the negative. To reiterate,
laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an
imprescriptible right.40  With the 1969 Deed of Sale being
null and void ab

_______________

36 Reyes v. Montemayor, 614 Phil. 256, 274-275; 598 SCRA 61, 80

(2009).
37 Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, 301 Phil. 91, 108; 231
SCRA 88, 104 (1994).
38 See Petition, Rollo, p. 12.
39 Reyes v. Montemayor, supra at pp. 273-274; p. 79.
40 Supra note 28.

 
 
42

initio, petitioners cannot set up the defense of laches to

thwart respondents’ imprescriptible action. And with the
Court’s determination that petitioners’ title is null and
void, the matter of direct or collateral attack is a foregone
conclusion as well.41  An action to declare the nullity of a
void title does not prescribe and is susceptible to direct, as
well as to collateral, attack.42
There is no doubt that the September 5, 1969 Deed of
Sale conveyed no title whatsoever in favor of Tomas.
However, this does not mean the automatic granting of the
action for reconveyance in favor of respondents.
By definition, an action for reconveyance is a legal and
equitable remedy granted to the rightful landowner, whose
land was wrongfully or erroneously registered in the name
of another, to compel the registered owner to transfer or
reconvey the land to him. The plaintiff must allege and
prove his ownership of the land in dispute and the
defendant’s erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration
of the property.43  In other words, the plaintiff must allege
and prove his ownership of the land in dispute and the
defendant’s erroneous, fraudulent or wrongful registration
of the property.44  Clearly, reconveyance is the remedy
available only to the rightful owners.
Respondents failed to prove that they are the rightful
owners of the lot in question. Respondents did not even
controvert by clear and convincing evidence petitioners’
claimed ownership of the subject lot on the basis of the
June 25, 1940 Deed of Sale, executed by the children of
Policarpio in favor of Paulino and then subsequently to
Tomas by succession, and the November 14, 1949 Deed of
Sale, executed by a certain Gavino in favor of Tomas.

_______________

41 Supra note 34 at p. 533; p. 640.

42 Id.
43  Chua v. Philippine College of Technological Resources, G.R. No.
164145, January 21, 2015, (Notice).
44 Id.

 
 
43

In their attempt to invalidate the June 25, 1940 Deed of

Sale, respondents alleged that said Deed of Sale was not
registered in the Registry of Deeds, thereby rendering
inoperative the provisions of the Property Registration
Decree. While it is true that the deed was not registered, it
was, however, notarized. It bears to stress that non-
registration of a Deed of Sale is not sufficient to nullify the
agreement of the parties embodied therein, especially if the
same is acknowledged before a Notary Public. Thus:
 More so, the above mentioned deeds of sale, having been
acknowledged before notaries public, are public documents
as defined under par. (b), Section 19, Rule 132 of the
Revised Rules of Court. Thus, [they carry] the evidentiary
weight conferred upon them with respect to [their] due
execution, and have in their favor the presumption of
regularity, in the absence of a clear and convincing evidence
to the contrary. They are valid and binding between the
parties thereto even if said deeds of sale were not registered
with the Register of Deeds, since registration is not a
requirement for validity of the contract as between the
parties.45

 
Indeed, registration is not a requirement for validity of
the contract as between the parties, for the effect of
registration serves chiefly to bind third persons.46  The
principal purpose of registration is merely to notify other
persons not parties to a contract that a transaction
involving the property has been entered into. Thus, it has
been held that “registration in a public registry creates
constructive notice to the whole world.”47  Hence, if the
conveyance is not registered, it is not valid against any
person. But there are recognized exceptions.

_______________

45 Supra note 31.

46 Cuizon v. Remoto, 509 Phil. 258, 268; 472 SCRA 274, 282 (2005).
47 Rotairo v. Alcantara, 744 Phil. 273, 284; 736 SCRA 584, 593 (2014).

 
 
44
The conveyance is still valid as to (1) the grantor; (2) the
grantor’s heirs and devisees; and (3) third persons having
actual notice or knowledge thereof.48 No doubt, respondents
are the grantors’ heirs. Petitioners, on the other hand,
are  third persons  within the contemplation of the
registration rule. Apart from them being the heirs of
Tomas, they have actual notice/knowledge of the
conveyance. Hence, registration is not required to bind
respondents and petitioners.49
As to the November 14, 1949 Deed of Sale, we cannot
determine for sure the objectives of the parties in executing
the said document. The RTC even suspected the
genuineness and due execution of the said Deed of Sale
when it observed:

The deed does not state by what authority he [Gavino] was

selling a property titled in the name of Policarpio Arao. No
document was presented as evidence to show the authority
of Gavino to sell the said land.50

 
Moreover, as the RTC added, it cannot be known if
indeed Gavino exists, especially in the light of the
averments in petitioners’ Answer that Tomas’ brother,
Paulino, died without issue.51
If it turned out that Paulino had an heir (in the person
of Gavino), then the November 14, 1949 Deed of Sale,
which the latter executed in favor of Tomas, would merely
strengthen the intent of the parties to transfer the title of
the subject property to Tomas. As it was not fully
established in this case whether Gavino was indeed
Paulino’s heir, then the said November 14, 1949 Deed of
Sale would serve no other purpose, but a mere superfluity.
With or without the said 1949 Deed of Sale, the title has
already been passed in favor of 

_______________
 48 Id.
49 Id.
50 RTC’s Decision; Rollo, p. 47.
51 Answer with Counterclaim; id., at p. 71.

 
 
45

Tomas by virtue of the June 25, 1940 Deed of Sale which

we declared as valid.
The intent to transfer the ownership over the subject
land has been established and effected by the execution of
the 1940 Deed of Sale by the heirs of the registered owner,
as well as the delivery thereof to petitioners.52 What is
needed is merely the issuance of the corresponding
Certificate of Title on the basis of the said 1940 Deed of
Sale. To make this possible, certain documents (pertaining
to estate settlements, as well as registrable Deeds of
Conveyance) are needed to facilitate the transfer of the title
of the lot from the heirs of the original owners to herein
petitioners, not to mention payment of corresponding taxes.
Hence, this Court directs the parties herein to execute all
necessary documents as required by law to effect the
smooth issuance of the new Certificate of Title based on the
1940 Deed of Sale. This is not the first time this Court
made such directive even if not prayed for by the winning
parties in their pleadings. The case of Spouses Aguinaldo v.
Torres, Jr.53 is instructive:

To be sure, the directive to execute a registrable deed of

conveyance in respondent’s favor —  albeit  not specifically
prayed for in respondent’s Answer with Counterclaim — is
but a necessary consequence of the judgment upholding the
validity of the sale to him, and an essential measure to put
in proper place the title to and ownership of the subject
 properties and to preclude further contentions thereon. As
aptly explained by the CA, “to leave the 1991 deed of sale as
a private one would not necessarily serve the intent of the
country’s land registration laws, and resorting to another
action merely to compel the petitioners to execute a
registrable deed of sale would unnecessarily prolong the
resolution of this case, especially when the end goal would
be the same.” 

_______________

52  Records show that petitioners are in actual possession of the lot
since 1940.
53 G.R. No. 225808, September 11, 2017, 839 SCRA 354.

 
 
46

In this relation, case law states that a judgment

should be complete by itself; hence, the courts are to
dispose finally of the litigation so as to preclude
further litigation between the parties on the same
subject matter, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of
suits between the parties and their privies and
successors-in-interests.54 (Emphasis supplied)

 
WHEREFORE, the petition is  PARTLY GRANTED.
The assailed Decision dated June 7, 2013 of the Court of
Appeals, in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 93660, is AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATION, to read as follows:
 
1. Declaring as NULL and VOID the Deed of Absolute
Sale dated September 5, 1969 for being fictitious,
inexistent and without any legal force and effect.
 2. Consequently, Transfer Certificates of Title No. T-
13798 and T-39071 are likewise declared NULL and
VOID  for being issued based on the aforesaid forged
and fictitious Deed of Sale dated September 5, 1969.
3. Declaring as VALID the Deed of Sale dated June 25,
1940.
4. Declaring petitioners to be the LAWFUL owners and
possessors of the subject Lot No. 1667 by virtue of the
valid Deed of Sale dated June 25, 1940.
5. Directing the parties to  EXECUTE  pertinent
documents required by law to effect the issuance of a
new Transfer Certificate of Title in favor of
petitioners, heirs of Tomas Arao represented by
Proceso Arao, Eulalia Arao-Maggay, Gabriel Arao and
Felipa A. Delelis.
SO ORDERED.

Peralta (Chairperson) and Leonen, JJ., concur.

_______________

54 Id.

 
 
47

Gesmundo and Hernando, JJ., On Wellness Leave.

Petition partly granted, judgment affirmed with

modification.

Notes.—When the plaintiff in an action for

reconveyance is not in possession of the subject property,
the action prescribes in ten years from the date of
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the
 certificate of title over the property, but when the plaintiff
is in possession of the subject property, the action, being in
effect that of quieting of title to the property, does not
prescribe. (Heirs of Domingo Valientes vs. Ramas,  638
SCRA 444 [2010])
An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust
prescribes in ten years, the reckoning point of which is the
date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of
the certificate of title over the property. (Brito, Sr. vs.
Dianala, 638 SCRA 529 [2010])

 
——o0o——

© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.