Zamora vs. Bagatsing

An action for reconveyance predicated on a forged and therefore null and void deed is imprescriptible, and laches cannot be invoked to resist its enforcement.

The controversy involves a 439-square-meter parcel of land in Pasay City originally registered under spouses Rosita and Jesus Zamora. The respondents, the Bagatsings, claimed ownership based on a notarized Deed of Donation purportedly executed by the spouses in favor of their mother, Zenaida Lazaro, on May 31, 1991—the same day Jesus Zamora died. A new title was issued in Lazaro's name. About 24 years later, petitioner Rosita Zamora filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim, alleging forgery of the signatures on the deed. Lazaro subsequently sold the property to her children, the Bagatsings, who obtained a new title carrying over the adverse claim annotation. They then filed a petition for cancellation of the adverse claim.

• Nature of the Property and Original Ownership: The subject is a 439-sqm parcel of land in Pasay City, originally covered by TCT No. 104125 in the names of spouses Rosita and Jesus Zamora.
• The Alleged Donation: The Bagatsings based their claim on a notarized Deed of Donation dated May 31, 1991, purportedly executed by the spouses Zamora in favor of Zenaida Lazaro (Rosita's aunt and the Bagatsings' mother). A new title (TCT No. 141543) was issued in Lazaro's name on November 20, 1998.
• Claim of Forgery and Adverse Claim: Rosita alleged that the signatures on the Deed of Donation were forgeries. She filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim on March 13, 2015, which was annotated on Lazaro's title.
• Subsequent Sale and New Title: Lazaro later sold the property to her children, the Bagatsings. A new title (TCT No. 003-2016000407) was issued in their names, carrying over the annotation of Rosita's adverse claim.
• Petition for Cancellation: The Bagatsings filed a petition for cancellation of the adverse claim annotation with the RTC.
• Lower Court Findings: Both the RTC and the CA found that the signatures of the spouses Zamora on the Deed of Donation were forged. The RTC, on this basis, denied the cancellation petition. The CA, while acknowledging the forgery, ruled that Rosita's right to seek reconveyance had prescribed.

• Nature of the Action: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals erred in tackling prescription of an action for reconveyance because the appealed case was a land registration case (petition for cancellation of adverse claim), not an action for reconveyance.
• Imprescriptibility of Action Based on Forgery: Petitioner maintained that an action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument, which is null and void ab initio, is imprescriptible. Therefore, the CA committed an error in law when it ruled that such an action had prescribed.

• Prescription and Laches: Respondents countered before the CA that petitioner was barred by the Statute of Limitations, having asserted ownership only 24 years after the execution of the Deed of Donation. They argued that the right to file an action for reconveyance had prescribed after 10 years from the registration of the title in Lazaro's name in 1998.

• Procedural Scope: Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in law when it tackled matters relating to prescription of an action for reconveyance in an appealed land registration case (petition for cancellation of adverse claim).
• Prescription of Action Based on Forgery: Whether the Court of Appeals committed an error in law when it ruled that the action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument had prescribed.

• Procedural Scope: The Court of Appeals was justified in discussing prescription as it was raised by respondents in their appeal. However, it was erroneous to resolve the case on the basis of prescription of an action for reconveyance, as the original action was a petition for cancellation of an adverse claim—a distinct remedy with a different purpose.
• Prescription of Action Based on Forgery: The CA erred. An action for reconveyance predicated on a deed found to be forged is imprescriptible because a forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Consequently, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of such an imprescriptible right. The RTC's denial of the cancellation petition was therefore correct, as petitioner's adverse claim was meritorious given the finding of forgery.

• Imprescriptibility of Actions Based on Void Documents — An action for reconveyance or cancellation of title based on the nullity of a deed (e.g., due to forgery) does not prescribe. A forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title, and any action predicated on such a void conveyance is imprescriptible. Corollarily, laches cannot be invoked against an imprescriptible right.
• Distinction Between Adverse Claim and Action for Reconveyance — An adverse claim is a sworn statement filed with the Register of Deeds to warn third parties of a controversy over ownership. An action for reconveyance is an original judicial action to compel the transfer of title to the rightful owner. The former is a provisional, protective measure; the latter is a substantive suit to recover ownership.

• "A forged deed is a nullity and conveys no title. Henceforth, any and all transactions subsequent to the said donation, including the purported sale made by Lazaro to the Bagatsings, shall be, likewise, null and void. Therefore, an action for reconveyance predicated on these null and void conveyances shall be deemed imprescriptible. Additionally, being an imprescriptible right, laches cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of the same."

• Heirs of Arao v. Heirs of Eclipse, 843 Phil. 391 (2018) — Cited as controlling authority for the rule that a complaint for cancellation of title based on the nullity of a deed of conveyance does not prescribe, and that an action predicated on a void conveyance is imprescriptible.

• Section 70, Presidential Decree No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) — Governs the annotation of adverse claims on land titles. Cited to define an adverse claim as a type of involuntary dealing made through a sworn statement filed with the Register of Deeds.

• Justice Henri Jean Paul B. Inting (Ponente)
• Justice Alfredo Benjamin S. Caguioa (Chairperson)
• Justice Japar B. Dimaampao
• Justice Maria Filomena D. Singh