Case Summary (G.R. No. 219074)
Factual Background
The property in dispute was originally covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-264547 and was allegedly the subject of a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 24, 1993 and a later instrument dated December 14, 1995 that resulted in the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-356656 in the names of Spouses Danilo L. Viovicente and Alice H. Viovicente. Teodorico M. Viovicente testified that he acquired the property through a GSIS housing loan and paid the amortizations for fifteen years. He and his wife Dominga L. Viovicente alleged that Danilo coerced them into signing the June 24, 1993 deed without consideration, and that they never signed nor appeared for acknowledgment of the December 14, 1995 deed. Documentary evidence included GSIS certifications of employment and loan payment, and an NBI handwriting examination.
Trial Court Proceedings
The Regional Trial Court, by Amended Decision dated July 16, 2010, found for Spouses Teodorico and Dominga Viovicente, concluding that the Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 24, 1993 was signed under coercion and lacked consideration and that the purported Deed dated December 14, 1995 was a manipulated version of the 1993 instrument. The trial court credited petitioners’ testimony and the NBI examiner’s findings of entries altered by "snopake," and ordered reconveyance, cancellation of TCT No. T-356656, and issuance of a new title in favor of Teodorico M. Viovicente.
Proceedings before the Court of Appeals
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed by Decision dated May 20, 2014 and dismissed the complaint, holding that petitioners failed to overthrow the presumption of due execution attaching to the notarized Deed dated December 14, 1995 and the Torrens title issued thereon. The Court of Appeals further ruled that the action for reconveyance had prescribed because TCT No. T-356656 was issued on January 16, 1996 while the complaint was filed in 2003. The CA denied reconsideration by Resolution dated June 18, 2015.
Issues Presented
The Supreme Court framed the threshold issues as: (1) whether petitioners’ causes of action were barred by prescription; and (2) whether there was a valid conveyance of the subject property in favor of respondents Spouses Danilo L. Viovicente and Alice H. Viovicente.
Parties’ Contentions
Spouses Teodorico and Dominga Viovicente contended that there was only one deed actually executed in 1993 which they were coerced to sign without receiving any consideration, that the notarized instrument dated December 14, 1995 was not formally offered in evidence by respondents and in any event was shown to be altered and spurious, and that the cause of action for reconveyance based on nullity of a simulated deed does not prescribe. Spouses Danilo and Alice Viovicente maintained that the December 14, 1995 deed was genuine, that the sale was supported by consideration of PHP 111,180.00, and that both the deed and the issued Torrens title enjoyed presumptions of due execution and regularity; they further urged that petitioners’ action was time-barred.
Supreme Court’s Analysis and Ruling
The Supreme Court found the petition meritorious and granted it. The Court emphasized Rule 45’s general limitation to review of errors of law but invoked the exception permitting reexamination of facts where the trial court and the Court of Appeals made conflicting findings. The Court held that petitioners had pleaded and tried an action for reconveyance based on a null deed of sale and that the complaint alleged inexistence of a valid sale, which is an action that does not prescribe under Article 1410 of the Civil Code. The Court concluded that the Court of Appeals erred in applying a four-year prescription rule under D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction, Inc. v. Panes because the present action sought declaration of nonexistence of a contract and cancellation of title founded on a spurious deed.
Legal Basis and Reasoning
The Court anchored its disposition on several factual and legal findings disclosed in the record. First, it relied on the NBI Senior Document Examiner Noel Cruz’s testimony that the entries showing the year "1995" were altered by "snopake" and that the underlying figures were deciphered as "3", supporting a conclusion that the notarized document dated December 14, 1995 was actually executed in 1993 and thereafter altered. Second, the Court noted respondents’ admissions in their answer that a subsequent deed bearing a later date had been prepared by a third party, Phio, to avoid surcharges and penalties, which undermined the claim of a bona fide sale on December 14, 1995. Third, the Court observed petitioners’ uncontradicted testimony, corroborated by GSIS certification, that Teodorico was physically in Tacloban and on duty on December 14, 1995 and thus could not have personally appeared before the Makati notary for acknowledgment. The Court held that these circumstances overcame the presumption of due execution of the public instrument and rendered the December 14, 1995 deed spurious and void. Separately, the Court found the June 24, 1993 instrument void for lack of consideration because petitioners credibly testified that they received no payment of the purported PHP 111,180.00, and because respondents failed to prove any amortization payments or the alleged agreement th
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 219074)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Spouses Teodorico M. Viovicente and Dominga L. Viovicente filed a complaint for reconveyance of property, nullity of sale, and cancellation of Torrens title against Spouses Danilo L. Viovicente and Alice H. Viovicente and the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna.
- The Regional Trial Court rendered an Amended Decision in favor of the petitioners ordering reconveyance and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-356656.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court by Decision dated May 20, 2014 and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated June 18, 2015.
- The petitioners sought review in the Supreme Court by a petition invoking Rule 45 of the Rules of Court to challenge the Court of Appeals' dispositions.
Key Factual Allegations
- Petitioners alleged that they were coerced by their son Danilo Viovicente into signing a Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 24, 1993 without receiving any consideration.
- Petitioners further alleged that a purported Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995 and the resulting TCT No. T-356656 were spurious and never personally executed or acknowledged by them.
- Petitioners produced a GSIS certification showing that Teodorico Viovicente reported for work on December 14, 1995, rendering personal appearance before a Makati notary physically impossible.
- NBI Senior Document Examiner Noel Cruz testified that the questioned instrument bore snopake alterations where figures "5" were superimposed over "3" and that the signatures on the documents were by the same hand, leading to a conclusion that the deed was probably signed in 1993.
- Respondents admitted that a brother named Phio processed transfers and that a second deed with a different date was prepared to avoid surcharges and penalties.
Procedural History
- Petitioners filed their complaint on January 20, 2003 in RTC Civil Case No. SPL-0898 seeking reconveyance and cancellation of TCT No. T-356656.
- The trial court, after hearing testimony and documentary evidence, issued an Amended Decision dated July 16, 2010 in favor of petitioners declaring the June 24, 1993 deed void and ordering cancellation of TCT No. T-356656.
- Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals which reversed and dismissed the complaint by Decision dated May 20, 2014 and denied reconsideration by Resolution dated June 18, 2015.
- Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court by petition for review under R