G.R. No. 149638 - Moncayo Integrated Small-Scale Miners Association, Inc. vs. Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp.

Petitioners: Heirs of Nicanor Garcia, represented by spouses Josefina Garcia-Doblada and Jose V. Doblada.
Respondents: Spouses Dominador J. Burgos and Primitiva I. Burgos, Spouses Filip Gerard V. Burgos and Marites A. Burgos, and Ester Gabriel Dominguez.
Disputed Properties: Six smaller lots subdivided from an 8,115-square-meter parcel located in Brgy. Daungan, Guiguinto, Bulacan, originally owned by Fermina Francia.

The Heirs claim to be successors of Nicanor C. Garcia, who was the designated legal transferee/legitimate tenant (kasama) of the large parcel by Fermina Francia under a Kasunduan Ukol sa Salinan ng Pamumuwisan sa Lupang Palayan (Kasunduan).
Nicanor had actual possession, cultivating the land until his death on June 23, 2010.
Dominador Burgos, initially Nicanor’s farm worker, allegedly caused the fraudulent transfer of 2,705 sq.m. portion of the land to himself.
Dominador subdivided and subsequently disposed of the lots which were registered under multiple Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) in favor of himself and other respondents.
After filing complaint in the barangay, an Undertaking was executed whereby Dominador agreed to return lots not yet transferred to third parties, which he later failed to comply with, citing financial inability.

The Petitioners filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Ownership, Possession and Property, Breach of Agreement/Undertaking, Cancellation of Titles, Nullity of Deeds of Sale, and Damages on June 2, 2016 before the RTC Malolos, Bulacan.
Respondents filed affirmative defenses including lack of jurisdiction, lack of cause of action, and absence of barangay clearance.
The RTC initially did not dismiss the case outright but ultimately granted a motion for reconsideration by defendants, dismissing the complaint for lack of cause of action and prescription.
The RTC ruled that Nicanor was merely a tenant, thus lacked personality to sue for reconveyance, and that the Kasunduan was unnotarized and not binding against third parties.
The RTC also ruled that the action prescribed since more than 10 years passed since issuance of the TCTs.
Petitioners elevated the case via petition for review to the Supreme Court, which denied the petition and motion for reconsideration.

The Heirs filed a Second Motion for Reconsideration before the Supreme Court En Banc, challenging the dismissal.
Respondents filed comments opposing the motion, which petitioners replied to.

Whether the RTC erred in dismissing the Complaint for Reconveyance on the ground that the Heirs lacked personality to sue as mere agricultural lessees.
Whether the action for reconveyance filed by the Heirs is barred by prescription.
Whether the Kasunduan Ukol sa Salinan ng Pamumuwisan sa Lupang Palayan, an unnotarized document, is valid and binding as a basis for the claim.
Whether the dismissal based on affirmative defenses should have been made without trial.