G.R. No. 254194 - Rosita vs. Zamora

The controversy concerns a 439-square-meter parcel of land in Pasay City originally owned and registered under the names of spouses Rosita V. Zamora and Jesus Zamora, as proven by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 104125.
Respondents, the Bagatsings (Ramon L. Bagatsing, Jr., Rosarity L. Bagatsing, Reynaldo L. Bagatsing, and Marilyn Bagatsing-Topacio) claimed that the spouses Zamora donated the property to Zenaida Lazaro, Rosita's aunt, through a notarized Deed of Donation dated May 31, 1991.
Based on the donation, TCT No. 141543 was issued in Lazaro's name, cancelling TCT No. 104125.
Notably, Jesus Zamora died due to prostate cancer around 2:00 a.m. on the same date as the execution of the deed at their property.

On March 13, 2015, Rosita filed an Affidavit of Adverse Claim for TCT No. 141543, alleging forgery of signatures on the Deed of Donation.
This filing resulted in an annotation on TCT No. 141543.
Lazaro later sold the property to her children, the Bagatsings, who registered it under a new title TCT No. 003-2016000407, which included the adverse claim annotation.

The Bagatsings filed a petition for cancellation of the annotation of adverse claim at the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Pasay City, Branch 118.
Rosita explained that spouses Zamora had mortgaged the property to L&R Corporation, and Lazaro paid the loan and asked for the duplicate title to redeem the property.
Upon checking with the Register of Deeds, Rosita discovered that the original title had been cancelled and a new one had been issued in Lazaro's name.

The RTC denied the Bagatsings' petition, ruling that the Deed of Donation was forged, supported by the forged signatures of spouses Zamora.

The CA reversed the RTC ruling and cancelled the adverse claim annotation.
The CA found the case barred by prescription, holding that Rosita failed to file an action for reconveyance within 10 years from Lazaro's title registration in 1998.
The CA affirmed this despite finding the signatures on the Deed of Donation to be forged.
Rosita's motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

Whether the CA erred in discussing prescription of an action for reconveyance in the context of a petition for cancellation of annotation of adverse claim.
Whether the CA erred in ruling that the action for reconveyance based on a forged instrument had prescribed.