G.R. No. 188395; November 20, 2013.
HEIRS OF THE LATE FELIX M. BUCTON, namely: NICANORA G. BUCTON, ERLINDA BUCTON-EBLAMO, AGNES BUCTON-LUGOD, WILMA BUCTON-YRAY and DON G. BUCTON, Petitioners, vs. SPOUSES GONZALO and TRINIDAD GO, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land originally registered in the name of Felix M. Bucton. In March 1981, Felix learned from respondent Gonzalo Go that the property had been purchased through a certain Benjamin Belisario, who represented himself as Felix’s attorney-in-fact. This was based on a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) dated February 27, 1981, allegedly signed by Felix and his wife Nicanora, authorizing Belisario to sell the land. Using this SPA, Belisario executed a Deed of Absolute Sale on March 2, 1981, in favor of the respondent Spouses Go. Consequently, the original title (TCT No. T-9830) was cancelled and a new one (TCT No. T-34210) was issued in the names of the Spouses Go. Felix discovered that the owner’s duplicate certificate of title had been lost while in the possession of his daughter Agnes and had fallen into the hands of Belisario and others. Felix died, and his heirs (petitioners) filed a complaint in 1996 for Annulment of the SPA, Deed of Absolute Sale, and TCT No. T-34210, Recovery of Ownership and Possession, and Damages. They alleged the signatures on the SPA were forged, making the sale void. The Spouses Go defended themselves as buyers in good faith who relied on the face of the title. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint on grounds of laches and prescription, noting the heirs took no action from 1981 to 1996. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal, finding the evidence of forgery insufficient and upholding the Spouses Go as innocent purchasers for value.

ISSUE

1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the signatures of the Spouses Bucton in the SPA were not forged.
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in finding that the Spouses Go are innocent purchasers for value.
3. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the action of the Heirs of Felix is barred by laches and prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and reversed the lower courts’ decisions.
1. On Forgery: The Court held that the evidence presented by the petitioners sufficiently established forgery. The testimony of NBI expert Eliodoro Constantino, who pointed out significant differences between Felix’s genuine signatures and the one on the SPA, and the testimony of Nicanora Bucton, who denied signing the SPA and affirmed the signature was not her husband’s, constituted clear and convincing evidence to overcome the presumption of regularity of the notarized SPA. The best evidence of forgery is the instrument itself, and comparison with genuine signatures is the proper method.
2. On Innocent Purchaser for Value: The Court ruled the Spouses Go could not be considered innocent purchasers for value. A purchaser cannot close his eyes to facts which should put a reasonable man on guard and claim he acted in good faith. The circumstances—including the loss of the owner’s duplicate title, the acquisition through a purported attorney-in-fact (Belisario) who was not personally known to the vendors, and the fact that the SPA and the Deed of Absolute Sale were executed within a very short span (four days)—were sufficient to arouse suspicion and necessitate further inquiry beyond the face of the title. Their failure to investigate precludes the protection accorded to buyers in good faith.
3. On Laches and Prescription: The Court held that the action was not barred by laches or prescription. An action for reconveyance based on a void contract (like one arising from a forged deed) is imprescriptible. Since the SPA was forged, the subsequent sale was null and void ab initio. No title passed to the Spouses Go, and the Torrens title issued in their name did not become indefeasible. The petitioners, as the true owners, may seek reconveyance of the property at any time. The defense of laches also fails because the petitioners’ delay in filing the suit (from 1981 to 1996) was not unreasonable given their continuous assertion of ownership and the void nature of the transaction.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION (Implied from the ruling): The Supreme Court granted the petition, reversed the Decision of the Court of Appeals, and declared the Special Power of Attorney and the Deed of Absolute Sale null and void. Consequently, TCT No. T-34210 in the name of the Spouses Go was ordered cancelled, and the Register of Deeds was directed to reinstate TCT No. T-9830 in the name of Felix M. Bucton. The Spouses Go were ordered to reconvey possession of the property to the petitioners.