Case Summary (G.R. No. 227894)
Petitioner’s Claim
• Asserts valid notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement with Waiver (ESW) dated September 30, 1970, transferring their parents’ conjugal property into his and his wife’s names under TCT No. 102822 issued November 24, 1970.
• Argues title became indefeasible one year after issuance (November 24, 1971) and that annulment action filed July 1, 1992 was prescribed.
• Contends respondent’s challenge is a collateral attack and barred by estoppel and laches.
Respondent’s Claim
• Alleges forgery of his signature on the ESW; NBI report confirms falsification.
• Seeks partition of the co-owned property and annulment/cancellation of petitioner’s title.
• Points to petitioners’ secret mortgage and refusal to partition.
Key Dates
• September 30, 1970 – ESW executed and notarized
• November 24, 1970 – Issuance of TCT No. 102822 in petitioner’s name
• July 1, 1992 – Complaint for partition and annulment filed
• September 30, 2011 – RTC Decision ordering partition and title annulment
• June 28, 2016 – CA Decision affirming RTC
• July 5, 2017 – Supreme Court Decision
Applicable Law
• 1987 Philippine Constitution (property rights, due process)
• Rule 45, Rules of Court (pertains to Petitions for Review on Certiorari)
• PD 1529 (Torrens system: one-year indefeasibility rule)
• New Civil Code, Article 1456 (implied trust for fraudulently acquired property)
• Civil Code, Articles 476–477 (quieting of title)
Facts
- The Subject Property was originally registered to their parents under TCT No. 36869.
- Petitioners allege their parents executed a Deed of Donation Propter Nuptias for them, secured DBP and SSS loans, and replaced the house.
- Respondent’s signature was allegedly forged on the ESW effecting the transfer to petitioner.
- Criminal complaints for falsification and forgery were filed against petitioner.
- The RTC initially dismissed for prescription (1994 Order), but the CA and this Court nullified that dismissal.
RTC Ruling
• September 30, 2011 Decision: Held that respondent proved forgery by preponderance of evidence (testimony and NBI report).
• Ordered (1) partition of the property into equal shares, (2) annulment and cancellation of TCT No. 102822, and (3) costs against petitioner.
Court of Appeals Ruling
• June 28, 2016 Decision: Affirmed RTC.
• Found ESW void for forgery; held action to annul it is not prescribed or barred by laches because a void contract is imprescriptible.
• Recognized action as one for reconveyance and removal of cloud on title.
Issues on Review
- Whether factual findings on forgery were supported by evidence.
- Whether the ESW is void or inexistent.
- Whether respondent’s action is barred by prescription or laches.
Supreme Court Ruling
- Questions of fact on forgery are not reviewable under Rule 45 and are supported by substantial evidence; findings stand.
- Prescription:
- Torrens titles become indefeasible after one year, but actions for reconveyance based on implied trust must be filed within ten years from issuance of title unless the plaintiff remains in possession.
- Respondent’s a
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 227894)
Procedural History
- Petitioner filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court seeking to reverse:
- CA Decision dated June 28, 2016 and Resolution dated October 20, 2016 in CA-G.R. CV No. 99908.
- Those CA rulings had affirmed the RTC Decision dated September 30, 2011 in Civil Case No. 92-61716, Branch 55, Manila.
- RTC Decision ordered partition of the subject property, annulment and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 102822, and costs against petitioner.
- RTC initially dismissed respondent’s complaint on prescription (Order of January 21, 1994); CA later nullified that dismissal in CA-G.R. CV No. 45121.
- Petitioner’s attempt for extension to file a Supreme Court petition was denied; CA denied petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration in its Resolution of October 20, 2016.
- This petition to the Supreme Court followed.
Facts of the Case
- Parties: Jose S. Ocampo (petitioner) and Ricardo S. Ocampo, Sr. (respondent) are full-blooded brothers, children of the late Basilio Ocampo and Juliana Sunglao.
- Subject Property: Conjugal property inherited from parents, 150 sqm lot with improvements at 2227 Romblon St., G. Tuazon, Sampaloc, Manila; originally under TCT No. 36869 in parents’ names.
- Respondent’s Allegations:
- Petitioner and wife conspired to forge respondent’s signature on a notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement with Waiver (ESW) dated September 1970.
- ESW led to TCT No. 102822 issued in petitioner’s name on November 24, 1970.
- NBI report confirmed forgery; criminal information filed for falsification.
- Petitioner refused to partition, secretly mortgaged the property for ₱200,000.
- Petitioner’s Affirmative Defense:
- Parents executed a Deed of Donation Propter Nuptias in petitioner’s favor; promised to replace old house with a new two-storey building financed by a ₱10,000 DBP loan (later paid via SSS loan).
- Parents allegedly gave respondent other properties, which respondent lost.
- F