G.R. No. 61466, 74757, 79555. November 22, 1989.
ENRIQUE T. JOCSON, et al., petitioners, vs. Hon. ALFONSO BAGUIO, et al., respondents. (Consolidated Cases).

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of Agustin Jocson, filed a complaint for rescission, reconveyance, and/or partition with damages (Civil Case No. 680) to recover a one-half interest in five lots. They claimed these lots were co-inherited by Agustin and his sister Natalia Jocson from their father, but Natalia registered them in her name exclusively in 1935. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds of prescription, laches, and being barred by prior judgment. Petitioner Enrique Jocson directly appealed the dismissal to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 74757). His co-petitioners filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals, which the trial judge did not act upon, prompting a mandamus petition to compel action (G.R. No. 79555).
Separately, the petitioners filed a motion to intervene in the testate estate proceeding of Ramiro Jocson (Natalia’s son), claiming a portion of the estate included the disputed lots. The probate court denied intervention, noting their claim was already pursued in Civil Case No. 680. This denial was challenged via certiorari (G.R. No. 61466). The Supreme Court consolidated these three petitions.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the main action for reconveyance; (2) Whether mandamus lies to compel the trial judge to act on the notice of appeal; and (3) Whether the probate court correctly denied the motion to intervene.

RULING

The petitions lack merit. On the substantive claim, the Court affirmed the dismissal of Civil Case No. 680. Natalia Jocson’s exclusive registration of the lots in 1935 constituted a clear repudiation of any co-ownership or trust in favor of Agustin. From that moment, her possession became adverse. Any action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust had prescribed. Under the law then applicable, the maximum prescriptive period was ten years. Agustin Jocson never filed an action for reconveyance; thus, his right, and consequently that of his heirs, was extinguished by 1945 at the latest, either by acquisitive prescription or by the statute of limitations.
Regarding procedure, the mandamus petition (G.R. No. 79555) was dismissed. The amended notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals was filed out of time. The reglementary 15-day period to appeal began from receipt of the dismissal order. The petitioners’ initial notice of appeal to the Supreme Court was an incorrect mode, as appeal on pure questions of law requires a petition for review under Rule 45, not a notice of appeal. This filing did not toll the period. Their subsequent amended notice, shifting the appeal to the Court of Appeals, was filed beyond the 15-day period, rendering the trial court’s order final and executory. Perfection of an appeal within the reglementary period is jurisdictional; mandamus cannot compel a void act.
Finally, the petition for certiorari (G.R. No. 61466) was denied for being moot and academic. Since the petitioners’ substantive claim over the properties had already prescribed, they possessed no legal interest to intervene in the estate proceedings. The probate court correctly denied their motion to intervene. All petitions were accordingly denied or dismissed.