G.R. No. 146341 ; August 7, 2003
AQUILA LARENA joined by her husband, CANDIDO MERCADERA, Petitioners, vs. FRUCTUOSA MAPILI, JOSE MAPILI and ROSELA VENELES, Respondents.

FACTS

Hipolito Mapili owned an unregistered parcel of land. Upon his death in 1934, he was survived by his son Magno Mapili and several daughters who later died without issue. Magno died in 1944, survived by his widow Rosela Veneles and children, including respondents Fructuosa and Jose Mapili. Petitioners claimed ownership through Aquila Larena, who allegedly purchased the property from her aunt, Filomena (or Felomina) Larena. Filomena, in turn, had executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property dated October 28, 1949, stating she bought the land from Hipolito Mapili. However, Hipolito had already been dead since 1934. Aquila Larena took possession of the property in the 1970s and obtained a Torrens title and tax declarations in her name. Respondents, as heirs of Magno Mapili, filed a complaint to recover the property, contending the affidavit was spurious as Hipolito could not have sold the land after his death. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of respondents, declaring the affidavit spurious and finding no valid sale. The Court of Appeals (CA) affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

Whether Filomena (or Felomina) Larena acquired the subject property from Hipolito Mapili through sale, and if not, whether petitioner Aquila Larena acquired it through acquisitive prescription and/or laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA decision. The Court held:
1. On the Alleged Sale: The factual findings of the CA, affirming the RTC, are final and conclusive. Both lower courts correctly found the Affidavit of Transfer spurious, as Hipolito Mapili was already deceased when the alleged 1949 sale occurred. Petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of a prior lost deed of sale. The testimonies of unwilling co-plaintiffs presented by petitioners were hearsay and without probative value. The Torrens title issued to Aquila Larena does not create or vest title but is merely evidence thereof, and it was not formally offered in evidence. The tax declarations in Aquila’s name, while indicia of possession, were insufficient to prove ownership, especially absent evidence to tack her possession to that of her predecessor.
2. On Acquisitive Prescription and Laches: Petitioners could not acquire the property through acquisitive prescription. Prescription does not run against respondents because they, as heirs, were in constructive possession of the property as co-owners. The action for reconveyance, based on a void or inexistent contract, is imprescriptible. Furthermore, laches does not apply because respondents’ delay in asserting their right was justified, as they were unaware of the fraud (the spurious affidavit) until they discovered it, after which they promptly filed the action. The elements of laches were not established.
The Court reiterated the doctrine that factual findings of the CA, affirming the trial court, are entitled to respect and finality, and petitioners failed to show any exception to this rule.