Imprescriptible

Even if a Transfer Certificate of Title has already been issued, the action remains imprescriptible if the transfer is null and void. This is the principle reiterated in this case of Ferdie, Tina, Cora, Nora, and Leony (Ferdie et.al).

Ferdie et.al, were the grandchildren of Pedro and Leona who were the original registered owners of Lot 4144 with an area of 6,423 square meters as evidenced by OCT No. 1946. Sometime in the first week of March 1999, they learned of the inheritance due them covering said property upon the demise of their parents. So Ferdie et. al hired a lawyer to investigate. And true enough their lawyer discovered that the property had already been divided into several portions and transferred in the names of Pecto and the spouses Chua.

The investigation further revealed that on December 3, 1967, an Extra-judicial Settlement with Simultaneous Sale of Portion of said registered Land (Lot 4144) was falsified by making it appear that Ferdie et. al have signed and participated in its execution when they have not, as they didn’t even know Pecto and the spouses Chua. So on April 28, 1999, Ferdie et.al filed a complaint before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) against Pecto and the spouses Chua, praying that the extra-judicial settlement be declared null and void ab initio, that the titles in the name of Pecto and the Chuas be cancelled and new TCTs issued in their names and that the latter be ordered to pay damages and attorney’s fees. Later on three cousins of Ferdie et.al also intervened alleging that they also have common inheritance rights with Ferdie et.al.

Upon motion of Pecto and the spouses Chua, the RTC dismissed Ferdie et.al’s complaint on the ground among others that the action has already prescribed since it was filed 32 years after the property was partitioned and portions thereof transferred to Pecto and the Chuas. The RTC said that the relevant prescriptive period here is ten (10) years from the date of registration of the TCTs in Pecto and Chuas’ names. Was the RTC correct?

No. The action does not prescribe notwithstanding the issuance of certificates of titles. The issuance of a certificate of title in their favor could not vest upon them ownership of the property; neither could it validate the purchase thereof which is null and void. Registration does not vest title; it is merely the evidence of such title. Our land registration laws do not give the holder any better title than what he actually has.

In actions for re-conveyance of the property predicated on the fact that the conveyance complained of was null and void ab initio, a claim of prescription of action would be unavailing. The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe (Article 1410 Civil Code). The action of Ferdie et.al therefore has not prescribed.

Dismissal based on laches cannot also apply in this case, as it has never reached the presentation of evidence stage and what the RTC had for its consideration were merely the parties’ pleadings. Laches is evidentiary in nature and cannot be established by mere allegations in the pleadings. Besides laches cannot be invoked in this case because it is a doctrine in equity and our courts are basically courts of law and not courts of equity. Equity, which is aptly described as “justice outside legality” should be applied only in the absence of and never against the law. The positive mandate of Article 1410 of the Civil Code conferring imprescriptibility to actions for declaration of inexistence of a contract should preempt and prevail over all abstract arguments based only on equity (Macababbad Jr. et. al vs. Masirag et. al. G.R. 161237, January 14, 2009).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]