Case Summary (G.R. No. 256233)
Key Dates and Procedural Posture
Complaint for reconveyance, nullity of sale, and cancellation of TCT No. T-356656 filed January 20, 2003. Trial court (Regional Trial Court) issued an Amended Decision in favor of petitioners (July 16, 2010). Court of Appeals reversed and dismissed petitioners’ complaint (Decision dated May 20, 2014) and denied reconsideration (Resolution dated June 18, 2015). Petitioners sought relief in the Supreme Court, which rendered the decision reviewed here.
Applicable Law and Jurisdictional Basis
The Supreme Court reviewed the case under its appellate jurisdiction and Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. As the decision postdates 1990, the Court’s exercise of jurisdiction and review of appellate error proceeds under the framework of the 1987 Constitution and applicable procedural and substantive law cited in the record (Rules of Court; Civil Code provisions).
Factual Background
Teodorico acquired the subject property through a GSIS real estate loan paid via salary deductions. Petitioners contend that on June 24, 1993 Danilo coerced Teodorico and Dominga to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale without receiving any payment. Petitioners discovered later that respondents had a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT No. T-356656) allegedly based on a notarized Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995, which petitioners denied signing or acknowledging. Petitioners presented GSIS certifications showing Teodorico’s work attendance and loan payment history; respondents relied on their own account of an arrangement and presented evidence including handwriting comparisons. An NBI document examiner testified regarding handwriting similarity and also detected alterations (snopake) on the 1995 deed.
Trial Court Findings and Ruling
The trial court found petitioners credible. It held that the June 24, 1993 Deed of Absolute Sale was signed under duress and lacked consideration, and that the purported December 14, 1995 deed was spurious (altered). The trial court concluded the sale(s) were void and ordered reconveyance of the property to petitioners and cancellation of the respondents’ TCT No. T-356656.
Court of Appeals Ruling and Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reversed. It considered that the transfer on record was effected on the basis of the December 14, 1995 deed and applied the presumption of due execution for public documents and the regularity of Torrens registration. The CA found petitioners failed to overturn the presumption that the 1995 deed was validly executed. It also ruled that the action for reconveyance had prescribed, applying a four-year prescription from issuance of the certificate of title.
Issues Presented to the Supreme Court
(1) Whether petitioners’ causes of action are barred by prescription; and (2) whether there was a valid conveyance of the subject property in favor of respondents.
Supreme Court’s Review Standard
Although Rule 45 limits review primarily to questions of law, the Supreme Court recognized the exception permitting plenary review when factual findings of the trial court and Court of Appeals are conflicting or contradictory; the Court applied that exception to re-examine evidence bearing on the authenticity of the deed(s) and the existence of consideration.
Analysis — Prescription
The Court held that petitioners’ cause of action is not barred by prescription. The complaint alleged an action for reconveyance predicated on the inexistence/nullity of a contract (simulated or spurious deed). Article 1410 of the Civil Code provides that an action for declaration of inexistence of a contract does not prescribe. The Court distinguished prior authority relied upon by the CA (which applied a four-year prescription for fraud-based reconveyance claims) and pointed to precedent holding that where a deed is simulated or fictitious, the action to declare its nullity and seek reconveyance is imprescriptible.
Analysis — Authenticity of the December 14, 1995 Deed
The Supreme Court concluded the 1995 document was spurious and thus not a valid source of title. The Court relied on several evidentiary points established at trial: (a) NBI document examiner Noel Cruz testified that entries showing the year “1995” were altered by snopake and that the original figures were “3” (indicating 1993), and that the questioned signatures were written by the same person; (b) respondents’ answer admitted that Phio prepared a second (dated) deed to avoid taxes and penalties and that the 1995 deed was printed and had been caused to be signed by petitioners; and (c) GSIS certification established that Teodorico was at work on December 14, 1995, making personal appearance before a Manila notary impossible. Taken together, the Court found sufficient proof to rebut the presumption of regularity and due execution attaching to the public document and its resulting Torrens title.
Analysis — Lack of Consideration for the June 24, 1993 Deed
Even assuming a June 24, 1993 instrument existed, the Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that there was no valid consideration supporting a sale. Article 1458 defines sale and requires price certain in money or its equivalent; Article 1471 invalidates sales where the price is simulated. Petitioners consistently testified that they received no payment; they presented GSIS documents demonstrating their ownership and payment of the housing loan. Respondents failed to prove the alleged arrangement (that Teodorico would obtain the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 256233)
Case Caption, Citation and Procedural Posture
- Reporter citation and docket: 878 Phil. 160, FIRST DIVISION, G.R. No. 219074, July 28, 2020.
- Parties: Petitioners — Spouses Teodorico M. Viovicente and Dominga L. Viovicente; Respondents — Spouses Danilo L. Viovicente and Alice H. Viovicente, and the Register of Deeds of Calamba, Laguna.
- Relief sought below and on appeal: Petitioners filed suit for reconveyance of property, nullity of sale, and cancellation of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-356656 issued in respondents’ names; they sought reinstatement of original TCT No. T-264547 in Teodorico’s name.
- Lower court disposition: Regional Trial Court (RTC) Amended Decision (dated July 16, 2010) rendered judgment for petitioners — declared Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 24, 1993 null and void; directed reconveyance and cancellation of TCT No. T-356656 and issuance of a new TCT in petitioners’ names.
- Court of Appeals disposition: Decision dated May 20, 2014 reversed the trial court and dismissed petitioners’ complaint; Resolution dated June 18, 2015 denied petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.
- Present forum and disposition: Petition to the Supreme Court (G.R. No. 219074) granted; Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC Amended Decision dated July 16, 2010.
Relevant Documentary and Title Identifiers
- Original registered title in petitioners’ name: Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-264547, property located at Pacita Complex II, Phase I, Blk 17, Lot 12, San Pedro, Laguna.
- Title issued to respondents: Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-356656, alleged to have been issued on January 16, 1996, based on a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995 (as represented by respondents).
- Two contested instruments: (a) Deed of Absolute Sale dated June 24, 1993 (petitioners contend they signed under coercion and without consideration); (b) Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 14, 1995 (respondents rely on this instrument for transfer and registration; petitioners deny execution and assert it is a spurious/altered instrument).
Petitioners’ Factual Allegations and Testimony
- Ownership and acquisition: Teodorico testified he was the registered owner of the Pacita Complex property under TCT No. T-264547, acquired through a GSIS real estate loan paid by salary deductions for fifteen (15) years.
- Coercion and lack of consideration (June 24, 1993): Teodorico and Dominga asserted that on June 24, 1993 Danilo came to their Tacloban home, angrily forced them to sign a Deed of Absolute Sale, hurled a briefcase at Teodorico (missed), and that they signed out of fear without receiving any payment or consideration.
- Denial of signing or appearing for 1995 deed: Petitioners denied executing or acknowledging the December 14, 1995 Deed of Sale; they produced a GSIS Tacloban certification indicating Teodorico reported for work on the dates allegedly showing personal appearance in Makati, rendering the notarial acknowledgments impossible.
- Discovery and filing: Petitioners learned of the transfer in 2002; they filed complaint dated January 20, 2003 for reconveyance, nullity of sale, and cancellation of TCT No. T-356656.
- Corroboration by Dominga: Dominga corroborated Teodorico’s account — that they were forced, did not read the document, and received no consideration.
Respondents’ Factual Assertions and Testimony
- Respondent Danilo’s account of arrangement: Danilo denied force and claimed an arrangement beginning circa 1983 whereby Teodorico would apply for a loan to buy a Manila house for siblings, Danilo would pay amortizations, and upon full payment Teodorico would convey the property to Danilo — Danilo asserted this arrangement justified the June 24, 1993 Deed.
- Use of intermediary and alternate deed: Danilo testified he gave the June 24, 1993 Deed to his brother Phio, who executed an identical Deed (allegedly to avoid surcharges and penalties) and was involved in processing the transfer documents.
- Evidence of execution and consideration: Respondents contended the December 14, 1995 Deed bore a valid notarial acknowledgment (Atty. Fallar) and that the TCT issued in regularity; they argued the presumption of due execution of the public document and presumption of regular issuance of Torrens title should prevail.
- Answer’s admission regarding 1995 deed mechanics: In their Answer respondents admitted that Phio printed an identical deed with altered date to avoid surcharges and penalties, and that the December 14, 1995 instrument reflected Phio’s unilateral processing.
Documentary and Expert Evidence Adduced at Trial
- GSIS Documents and Certifications:
- GSIS-certified record showing Teodorico’s housing unit granted June 1, 1983 with cost P111,180.00 and monthly amortization P1,317.07 (certification dated May 12, 1986 cited).
- GSIS Certification dated February 12, 2002 stating Teodorico’s housing loan was fully paid on December 8, 1992 under OR No. 507693421.
- GSIS certification dated August 15, 2003 (Exhibit I) stating that Mr. Teodorico Viovicente was present on December 14, 1995 according to branch records (used to show physical impossibility of notarization in Makati).
- NBI Document Examination:
- NBI Senior Document Examiner Noel Cruz testified that Teodorico’s signatures on the December 14, 1995 Deed and other sample documents were written by the same person.
- Cruz identified “snopaked” entries on the December 14, 1995 Deed showing the figure “5” superimposed on an original “3” in multiple places (pages 2 and 3, including the acknowledgment), and concluded the document was actually executed in 1993.
- Cruz described his methodology: lighting processes and photographic revealing of underlying figures.
- GSIS Time and Administrative Records:
- Gavino B. Gagarin, GSIS Chief of Accounts Administrative Division, testified that Teodorico’s timecards for 1993–1995 and daily time records for Jan–Aug 1992 were unsigned.
- Other documentary exhibits: sample signatures from 1994 Income Return, Sworn Statement of Assets and Liabilities, letters to Danny dated Nov 14, 1993; Dec 25, 1994; Jan 31, 1995; Apr 24, 1995; birthday card dated May 31, 1995; enlarged photographs of 1992 daily time records.