Title
Cotoner-Zacarias vs. Spouses Revilla
Case
G.R. No. 190901
Decision Date
Nov 12, 2014
Revilla spouses discovered forgery of land sale document, leading to void transactions; SC upheld reconveyance, ruling action imprescriptible and forgery voiding all transfers.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 190901)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Background
    • Alfredo Revilla and Paz Castillo-Revilla (the Revilla spouses) own an unregistered 15,000-sqm parcel in Silang, Cavite (Tax Dec. No. 7971).
    • In 1983, facing financial need for Alfredo’s Saudi Arabia deployment, Paz borrows from Amada Cotoner-Zacarias under an oral antichresis agreement: Amada takes possession, cultivates the land, applies the fruits to interest and principal, and returns the land upon full repayment.
  • Undisclosed Forgery and Subsequent Transfers
    • Amada presents a fictitious “Kasulatan ng Bilihan ng Lupa” dated March 19, 1979, forging the Revillas’ signatures; Tax Dec. No. 7971 is cancelled and Tax Dec. No. 19773 is issued in Amada’s name.
    • August 25, 1984: Amada sells to spouses Adolfo and Elvira Casorla (Tax Dec. No. 30411-A).
    • December 16, 1991: Casorla spouses sell to spouses Rodolfo and Yolanda Sun (Tax Dec. Nos. 30852-A, 18584).
  • Discovery and Judicial Proceedings
    • December 1994: Revillas discover the transfers; February 1995: they learn of the forged deed in a land registration case and demand cancellation and reconveyance, but Amada ignores them.
    • November 17, 1995: Revillas file suit (RTC Tagaytay, Civil Case No. TG-1543) for annulment of sales and reconveyance, plus damages, against Amada, the Casorlas, the Suns, and the Provincial Assessor.
    • RTC Decision (Aug. 3, 2006): Declares all transfers from Dec. No. 7971 to No. 18584 null and void; reinstates Revillas’ title and possession; awards P50,000 moral, P20,000 exemplary, P80,000 attorney’s fees to Revillas; P467,350 actual, P50,000 moral, P20,000 exemplary, P100,000 attorney’s fees to Suns.
    • CA Decision (Aug. 13, 2009): Dismisses Amada’s appeal; partially grants Suns’ appeal on interest: 6% p.a. on P467,350 from Feb. 3, 1995 to finality; 12% p.a. thereafter.
    • SC Petition: Amada challenges prescription/laches, antichresis writing requirement (Art. 2134 CC), burden of proof, docket fees (P50,000 vs. alleged P12 million), conjugal consent, and Suns’ good faith.

Issues:

  • Is the Revilla spouses’ cause of action barred by prescription or laches?
  • Did the trial court acquire jurisdiction despite docket fees based on P50,000 instead of the property’s alleged P12 million value?
  • Did the Court of Appeals err in upholding reinstatement and reconveyance to the Revilla spouses?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.