G.R. No. 173186 September 16, 2015
ANICETO UY, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, MINDANAO STATION, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, CARMENCITA NAVAL-SAI, REP. BY HER ATTORNEY-IN-FACT RODOLFO FLORENTINO, Respondents.

FACTS

Private respondent Carmencita Naval-Sai acquired ownership of two subdivided lots, Lots No. 54-B-8 and No. 54-B-9, covered by TCTs No. T-58334 and No. T-58335. She borrowed money from Grace Ng and delivered the two titles as security. Ng, in turn, borrowed money from petitioner Aniceto Uy and delivered the same titles to him as a guarantee for her loan. Naval-Sai later learned that Uy had filed and won a case for recovery of possession (Civil Case No. 1007) against Francisco Omandac, who had constructed a house on one of the properties. That case became final and executory in 2001. In July 1999, Naval-Sai filed a Complaint for Annulment of Deed with Damages against Uy, alleging that a deed of sale for the two lots between her and Uy was a forgery and that she never sold the lots. She filed an Amended Complaint, which added a prayer to declare the new TCTs registered in Uy’s name (TCT Nos. T-62446 and T-62447) as null and void ab initio. This Amended Complaint was not signed by Naval-Sai but by her counsel. Uy, in his Answer, claimed he and Naval-Sai entered into a valid contract of sale in 1981, and the titles were issued in his name thereafter. He raised special defenses, including non-compliance with the certification of non-forum shopping (as the Amended Complaint’s certification was signed only by counsel) and prescription. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint on these grounds, ruling the action was a collateral attack on the titles, which is prohibited after one year from registration, and that the defective certification warranted dismissal. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, ruling there was substantial compliance with the certification requirement (as the original complaint had a proper certification) and that the action was in reality an imprescriptible action for reconveyance based on a void contract, not a collateral attack. Uy filed this petition.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling there was substantial compliance with the requirements on certification of non-forum shopping.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the action has prescribed and/or that private respondent is guilty of laches or estoppel.

RULING

1. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. There was substantial compliance with the certification against forum shopping requirement. The original complaint contained a proper verification and certification duly signed by Naval-Sai. While the verification and certification in the Amended Complaint was signed only by her counsel, the amended pleading stated it should be “taken and read together with the original complaint.” The Supreme Court held that an amended complaint is not an initiatory pleading but a mere continuation of the original complaint. The rule requiring a certification applies only to initiatory pleadings. Therefore, the certification in the original complaint substantially complied with the rules.
2. No, the Court of Appeals did not err. The action, although captioned as an annulment of deed, is in reality an action for reconveyance based on a void or forged deed of sale. An action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible; the right to seek reconveyance does not prescribe. However, the defense of laches may apply. Laches is the failure or neglect for an unreasonable length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it has abandoned or declined to assert it. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the RTC for further proceedings to determine the factual issues, including whether the deed of sale was indeed void due to forgery and whether laches had attached given the significant lapse of time (the deed was allegedly executed in 1981, titles issued in Uy’s name in 1982, and the complaint filed in 1999). The RTC must evaluate the evidence on these points.