Alcantara-Daus vs. De LeonGR No. 149750 June 16, 2003

FACTS:

Spouses Hermoso and Socorro De Leon, respondents, owned parcel of land with an area of more or less 4,212 square meters situated in the Municipality of San Manuel. The land is covered by Original Certificate of Title of the Land Records of Pangasinan. The land was inherited by Hermoso de Leon from his father Marcelino De Leon by virtue ofa Deed of Extrajudicial Partition. They engaged the services of the late Atty. Florencio Juan to take care of the documents of the properties of his parents and let them sign voluminous documents. Some documents surfaced after the death of Atty. Juan and most of it revealed that their properties had been conveyed by sale or quitclaim to Hermoso’s brother and sisters when in fact, no such conveyances were ever intended by them. His signature in the deed of extrajudicial partition with quitclaim made in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was forged. They discovered that Rodolfo de Leon sold the land in questions to Aurora Alcantara. They demanded annulment of the document but defendants refused. Aurora Alcantara-Daus claims that she bought the land in good faith and for value on December 6, 1975. She has been in continuous possession of the land and has been appropriating the produce without objection from anyone.

The Regional Trial Court rendered its decision in favor of the petitioner. The trial court ruled that the claim was barred by laches, since more than 18 years had passed since sale of the land. The Deed of Extrajudicial Partition in favor of Rodolfo De Leon was presumptively authentic since it was in a notarial document. The Court of Appeals on the other hand reversed the decision made the by the Regional Trial Court and held that the sale made by Rodolfo De Leon was made in bad faith since he’s not the owner at the time he made the sale; therefore he can’t transfer any rights. It was also declared that the signature of Hermoso was forged.

ISSUES:

The issues raised in question in this case are (1) whether or not the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 6, 1975 executed by Rodolfo de Leon over the land in question in favor of petitioner was perfected and binding upon the parties therein, (2) whether or not the evidentiary weight of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim, executed by respondent Hermoso de Leon, Perlita de Leon and Carlota de Leon in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was overcome by more than a preponderance of evidence of respondents, (3) whether or not the possession of petitioner including her predecessor-in-interest Rodolfo de Leon over the land in question was in good faith, and (4) whether or not the instant case initiated and filed by respondents on February 24, 1993 before the trial court has prescribed and respondents are guilty of laches.

DECISION:

The Supreme Court stated that the sale was perfected but it was doubtful that there was transfer of ownership since Rodolfo de Leon was not the owner of the land. It was also noted that the authenticity of the Extrajudicial Partition is questionable since a comparison of the genuine signatures of Hermoso De Leon with his purported signature on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim reveals that the latter is forged. Prescription can’t be allowed against the hereditary successors of the registered owner, because they merely step into the shoes of the decedent and are merely the continuation of the personality of their predecessor in interest. Consequently, since a certificate of registration covers it, the disputed land cannot be acquired by prescription regardless of petitioner’s good faith. Laches is based upon equity and thepublic policy of discouraging stale claims. It cannot be used to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud and injustice. Thus, the assertion of laches to thwart the claim of respondents is foreclosed, because the Deed upon which the petitioner bases her claim is forged. The Supreme Court denied the petition and the assailed decision is affirmed with the costs against the petitioner.

LAW:

Base on Article 1434: “Art. 1434. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or

alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.”

Also, Article 1141of the New Civil Code provides that real actions over immovable properties prescribe after thirty years. This period for filing action is interrupted when a complaint is filed in court.