Case Digest (G.R. No. L-41314)
Facts:
The case of Spouses Teodorico M. Viovicente and Dominga L. Viovicente (petitioners) versus Spouses Danilo L. Viovicente and Alice H. Viovicente and the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna (respondents) arose from a complaint filed on January 20, 2003 in RTC Civil Case No. SPL-0898. Petitioners alleged Teodorico was the registered owner of a lot in Pacita Complex II, Laguna covered by TCT No. T-264547, acquired through a GSIS real estate loan paid via salary deductions over fifteen years. On June 24, 1993, their son Danilo purportedly forced them in Tacloban City to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale without consideration, aided by threats and physical intimidation; the acknowledgment falsely indicated a Makati City appearance on July 14, 1993. In 2002, Danilo and Alice allegedly secured a second Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995, which was actually the 1993 document with “snopake” alterations of the year, and obtained TCT No. T-356656. Petitioners sought reconveyance, nulCase Digest (G.R. No. L-41314)
Facts:
- Parties and Property
- Petitioners: Spouses Teodorico M. Viovicente and Dominga L. Viovicente, owners of a GSIS‐financed residential lot at Pacita Complex II, Laguna (TCT No. T-264547).
- Respondents: Spouses Danilo L. Viovicente (eldest son of petitioners) and Alice H. Viovicente; Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna.
- Underlying Transactions and Allegations
- Petitioners’ claim
- June 24, 1993: Danilo allegedly forced Teodorico and Dominga to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale of the property without consideration, under verbal and physical intimidation.
- December 14, 1995: A second Deed of Absolute Sale (TCT No. 356656) was recorded in respondents’ names. Petitioners denied signing this instrument and presented GSIS payroll records showing Teodorico in Tacloban on that date.
- January 20, 2003: Petitioners filed a Complaint for reconveyance, nullity of the two deeds of sale, and cancellation of TCT No. 356656.
- Respondents’ defense
- Alleged voluntary sale arrangement: Teodorico took out the housing loan; Danilo paid amortizations; title would be conveyed upon full payment.
- December 1995 deed explained as a “duplicate” created by Danilo’s brother to avoid surcharges—allegedly signed by petitioners.
- NBI document examiner testified that petitioners’ signatures on the 1995 deed were genuine and that the deed enjoyed the presumption of due execution. GSIS records were inconclusive on petitioners’ appearance.
- Proceedings Below
- Trial Court (RTC, Amended Decision July 16, 2010)
- Found petitioners’ testimonies credible: coercion in 1993, no consideration received, and 1995 deed forged (“snopake” over date entries).
- Declared both deeds null and void; ordered reconveyance and cancellation of TCT No. 356656; reinstated petitioners’ title.
- Court of Appeals (Decision May 20, 2014; Resolution June 18, 2015)
- Held petitioners failed to overcome the presumption of due execution of the 1995 deed.
- Ruled the action for reconveyance prescribed in 2000 (four years after the 1996 registration).
- Reversed RTC decision and dismissed petitioners’ complaint.
- Present Petition
- Petitioners seek reversal of the CA decisions and reinstatement of the RTC’s Amended Decision.
- They argue:
- Only one deed was signed (1993) and it lacked consideration; the “1995” deed is a forged alteration.
- The presumption of due execution does not apply because the instrument was never formally offered and is patently altered.
- The action is imprescriptible under Article 1410 of the Civil Code.
Issues:
- Prescription
- Are petitioners’ causes of action for reconveyance and nullity of the deeds barred by prescription?
- Validity of Conveyance
- Was there a valid conveyance of the subject property in favor of respondents under either the June 24, 1993 or December 14, 1995 deed?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)