G.R. No. 146548 , December 18, 2009.
HEIRS OF DOMINGO HERNANDEZ, SR., namely: SERGIA V. HERNANDEZ (Surviving Spouse), DOMINGO V. HERNANDEZ, JR., and MARIA LEONORA WILMA HERNANDEZ, Petitioners, vs. PLARIDEL MINGOA, SR., DOLORES CAMISURA, MELANIE MINGOA AND QUEZON CITY REGISTER OF DEEDS, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, the heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr., filed a complaint for annulment and reconveyance concerning a parcel of land in Quezon City originally awarded to Domingo Hernandez, Sr. and his spouse by the Philippine Homesite and Housing Corporation (PHHC). The property was fully paid, and TCT No. 107534 was issued in their names on May 23, 1966. After Domingo Hernandez, Sr. died in April 1983, the heirs discovered that TCT No. 107534 had been cancelled in 1982 and replaced by TCT No. 290121 issued in the name of respondent Melanie Mingoa. The cancellation was based on documents including an Irrevocable Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated February 14, 1963, allegedly executed by the Hernandez spouses in favor of Dolores Camisura, a Deed of Sale of Right dated May 9, 1964, from Camisura to Plaridel Mingoa, Sr., and a Deed of Absolute Sale dated July 9, 1978, from Plaridel Mingoa, Sr. to Melanie Mingoa. Petitioners alleged these documents were forged. Respondents claimed Hernandez, Sr. sold his rights to Camisura due to financial difficulties, and they subsequently paid for the property. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the documents void and ordering reconveyance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, finding the action barred by prescription and laches. The CA held that the action, filed in 1994, was filed beyond the ten-year prescriptive period for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, which commenced from the issuance of TCT No. 107534 in 1966 or at the latest from the registration of the sale to Melanie Mingoa in 1978.

ISSUE

Whether the action for reconveyance filed by petitioners is barred by prescription and laches.

RULING

Yes, the action is barred by prescription and laches. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The issuance of TCT No. 107534 in the name of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. on May 23, 1966, constituted constructive notice to the whole world of his ownership. Petitioners, as his heirs, are deemed to have constructive notice of this title from its issuance. Therefore, the ten-year prescriptive period began to run from May 23, 1966. Even if the period were to be counted from the registration of the sale to Melanie Mingoa and the issuance of TCT No. 290121 in 1978, the action filed in 1994 was still filed beyond the ten-year period. Furthermore, petitioners’ inaction for over a decade from the issuance of the original title, and their failure to assert their claim despite the respondents’ long-term possession and payment of taxes, constitutes laches. The Court rejected the argument that the action is imprescriptible because it seeks to declare void ab initio the forged SPA and subsequent deeds. The action is essentially for reconveyance, which is subject to prescription. The existence of a Torrens title in the respondents’ names, which enjoys the presumption of regularity, coupled with petitioners’ failure to act within a reasonable time, bars their claim.