G.R. No. 211422 - Oberes vs. Oberes

On August 13, 2003, petitioners Ciriaco, Cesario, and Gaudencio Oberes filed a Complaint for Annulment of Deed of Sale, Recovery of Possession and Judicial Partition of Real Estate, Damages, and Attorney’s Fees against their brother Adriano Oberes before the Regional Trial Court (RTC).
The RTC rendered its Decision on April 24, 2009, declaring the April 11, 1973 Deed of Sale by which Gaudencio purportedly sold his undivided share of Lot No. 5306 to Adriano null and void, and ordering partition of the lot equally between Gaudencio and Adriano.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a Decision dated June 4, 2013, set aside the RTC Decision and dismissed the complaint on the ground that the action for annulment of the voidable Deed of Sale had prescribed. The CA denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration on January 29, 2014.
Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via Petition for Review on Certiorari, which was resolved on October 16, 2019.

The late spouses Francisco Oberes and Catalina Larino died in 1946 and 1948, leaving five heirs—petitioners Ciriaco, Cesario, Gaudencio, Domingo, and respondent Adriano—and two parcels of land: Lot No. 11450 (5,924 sq m) and Lot No. 5306 (3,461 sq m).
In 1972, the siblings orally partitioned both parcels: the entire Lot No. 11450 was allotted to Ciriaco, Cesario, and Domingo; Lot No. 5306 was allotted to Gaudencio and Adriano.
In 1973, Adriano caused the execution of a notarized Deed of Sale in his favor over Gaudencio’s undivided share in Lot No. 5306. Gaudencio later denied capacity to execute or consent to that deed, claiming illiteracy.
On May 17, 1994, Ciriaco, Cesario, and Domingo executed an Affidavit of Waiver over Lot No. 5306 in favor of Gaudencio; Adriano refused to sign, insisting on his earlier purchase.
Petitioners Ciriaco and Cesario disposed of their shares in Lot No. 11450 to third parties between 1997 and 2002, as reflected by successive tax declarations.
Petitioners discovered alleged fraud in the 1973 sale upon Adriano’s refusal to join the 1994 waiver, prompting the 2003 complaint for annulment and partition.

Whether the Court of Appeals gravely abused its discretion in dismissing the petitioners’ complaint on the ground of prescription.
Whether the CA erred in holding that the 1973 Deed of Sale was voidable (annullable) rather than null and void.