GR 254194; (March, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. 254194, March 29, 2023
ROSITA V. ZAMORA, PETITIONER, VS. RAMON BAGATSING, JR., ROSARITY L. BAGATSING, REYNALDO L. BAGATSING, AND MARILYN BAGATSING-TOPACIO, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
The case involves a parcel of land originally owned by spouses Rosita and Jesus Zamora. The respondents (Bagatsings) claim that the spouses Zamora donated the property to Zenaida Lazaro (Rosita’s aunt) via a Deed of Donation dated May 31, 1991, the same day Jesus Zamora died. Based on this deed, a new title was issued to Lazaro. Twenty-four years later, in 2015, Rosita filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on the title, alleging the signatures on the Deed of Donation were forged. Subsequently, Lazaro sold the property to the Bagatsings, and the new title carried the annotation of Rosita’s adverse claim. The Bagatsings filed a petition for cancellation of the adverse claim annotation with the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The RTC denied the petition, finding the Deed of Donation to be forged. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ordering the cancellation of the adverse claim on the grounds of prescription and laches, ruling that Rosita’s right to file an action for reconveyance had prescribed after 10 years from the 1998 registration under Lazaro’s name, despite also finding the signatures were forged.
ISSUE
1. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in tackling matters relating to prescription of an action for reconveyance in an appealed land registration case (a petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim).
2. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument had prescribed.
RULING
1. The CA did not err in discussing prescription as it was raised by the parties, but it erred in resolving the case on the basis of prescription for an action for reconveyance. The original action was a petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim, which is a distinct remedy from an action for reconveyance. An adverse claim is a notice of controversy over ownership filed with the Register of Deeds, while an action for reconveyance is a judicial action to compel the transfer of property.
2. The CA committed an error in law. Assuming arguendo the case involved an action for reconveyance, such an action based on a forged deed is imprescriptible. The Court found both the RTC and CA correctly determined the signatures on the Deed of Donation were forged. A forged deed is null and void and conveys no title. Consequently, any action for reconveyance predicated on such a void instrument does not prescribe, and laches cannot be invoked against it. Therefore, Rosita’s adverse claim was meritorious. The Supreme Court reversed the CA decision and reinstated the RTC decision denying the petition for cancellation of the adverse claim annotation.