G.R. No. 140004-05 - People vs. Nebria y Cabanada

On June 20, 2002, Florito M. Garcia, Jr., the respondent, filed Civil Case No. C-20128 for the cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 273165 in Caloocan City against petitioners Marlene and Jose Crisostomo.
The dispute centers on a property originally sold through a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on September 24, 1986, by Victoria Garcia Vda. de Crisostomo (mother of petitioner Jose Crisostomo) in favor of the respondent.

The Deed of Sale from 1986 was witnessed by petitioner Jose Crisostomo and his sister Cristina, who were related to the seller.
After the sale, the respondent transferred the tax declaration covering the property under his name.
Notably, before the title could be transferred to the respondent, petitioners—by securing a loan from the National Home Mortgage Finance Corporation using the property as security—transferred the property into their names, resulting in the issuance of TCT No. 273165, without the respondent’s knowledge or consent.
The arrangement included a contractual understanding whereby Victoria and her children, including petitioner Jose Crisostomo, continued to occupy the property as lessees.

Instead of filing a formal Answer, the petitioners filed an “Urgent Motion to Dismiss Action,” arguing that:

Since the cause of action arises from the deed of sale dated September 24, 1986, Article 1144 of the Civil Code—which mandates a 10-year prescriptive period for actions based on written contracts—bars the action after September 24, 1996.
The complaint was filed on June 20, 2002, well past the 10-year period.

The complaint was not for specific performance of the deed of sale but instead for reconveyance of title based on an implied or constructive trust.
This reconveyance action invokes a different prescriptive period, namely 10 years from the date the adverse registration occurred (from the issuance of the title).

The trial court, in an Order dated August 12, 2003, denied the petitioners’ motion to dismiss the case:

It noted the existence of a deed of sale but emphasized that the plaintiff’s action was for cancellation of title based on fraud discovered upon registration in 1993.
The order directed the petitioners to file their Answer within ten days.

Petitioners then filed a Motion for Reconsideration (September 11, 2003), which was opposed by the respondent; the trial court denied this motion on October 21, 2003.
The petitioners escalated the issue by filing a Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals:

The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition on the ground that the issue of prescription was a question of fact, and such defense was not properly reviewable in a petition for certiorari.
A Motion for Reconsideration before the Court of Appeals, dated March 22, 2004, was similarly denied on August 6, 2004.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the issue of prescription involves a question of fact.
Whether, even if the issue is factual, the appellate court erred in not addressing the merits of the petition.
Whether the respondent’s action had already prescribed.

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its determination that the issue of prescription is primarily a question of fact, which requires evaluation of evidence rather than pure legal interpretation.
Whether, assuming that the issue of prescription indeed involves the determination of factual matters, the Court of Appeals erred by refusing to decide on the merits of the petition for certiorari.
Whether the action filed by the respondent for reconveyance and cancellation of title has prescribed, given the timeline from the execution of the deed of sale in 1986, the registration of title in 1993, and the filing of the complaint in 2002.