LACSAMANA, ET AL VS.

CA
NOVEMBER 11, 2010 ~ VBDIAZ

LACSAMANA, ET AL VS. CA
G.R. No. 121658
March 27, 1998
FACTS: Leon Robles and his niece Amparo Robles were the registered co-owners in
equal shares of a lot in Lipa City, covered by an OCT. Subsequently Amparo sold her
1/2 undivided share to El Dorado Corp. a TCT was issued in the names of EL
DORADO and Leon Robles as co-owners.
On 24 September 1969 Leon Robles died survived by his wife Ester and 2 children as
his sole heirs. However, in a Deed of Absolute Sale dated 22 July 1971, Leon Robles
purportedly with the marital consent of his wife sold his one-half 1/2 undivided share
to one Lacsamana. 9 years later the Deed of Absolute Sale was registered in the RD of
Lipa City by one Gonzales. Consequently, the TCT in the names of EL DORADO and
Leon Robles was cancelled and a new TCT was issued in the names of EL DORADO
and Lacsamana.

On 1980 Lacsamana purportedly sold his one-half 1/2 share to LBJ Development
Corporation represented by its President, Leviste. A certain Lumanglas registered the
deed of sale in the RD resulting in the cancellation of the TCT of EL DORADO and
Lacsamana and the issuance of a new TCT in the names of EL DORADO and LBJ.

On 1982 LBJ became the owner of the entire lot when EL DORADO sold to it its
one-half share for a consideration. Consequently, the latest TCT was cancelled and
new TCTs Nos were issued in the name of LBJ.

On 1983 the surviving heirs of Leon Robles, filed a complaint with the RTC of Lipa
City against Lacsamana, EL DORADO, LBJ and Leviste for the recovery of the one-
half undivided share of Leon in the subject lot and the cancellation of the TCTs in the
name of LBJ. The complaint alleged that the signature of Leon Robles in the Deed of
Absolute Sale in favor of Lacsamana was a forgery as Leon was already dead at the
time of the alleged sale.
The RTC rendered judgment in favor of plaintiffs, holding that defendant LBJ is not a
purchaser in good faith, further ordering the cancellation of all the present titles
covering the subject lot and to reinstate the TCT in the names of Leon Robles and El
Dorado Plantation, Inc.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the findings and conclusions of the trial court on
appeal by EL DORADO, LBJ and Leviste. The 2 courts differed only insofar as the
issue of prescription was concerned. Instead of the period of four (4) years for filing
actions for reconveyance on ground of fraud cited by the trial court, respondent CA
ruled that the present action had not yet prescribed since actions to declare the nullity
of a void contract was imprescriptible

ISSUE:
1. WON the action instituted by the private respondents barred by reason of
prescription
2. WON the action instituted by the private respondents barred by reason of laches
HELD: The petition is DENIED. The questioned decision of respondent CA
affirming that of the RTC of Lipa City is AFFIRMED.
1. On the issue of prescription, we agree that the present action has not yet prescribed
because the right to file an action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate
of title was obtained by means of a fictitious deed of sale is virtually an action for the
declaration of its nullity, which action does not prescribe. Hence, the fact that the
alleged sale took place in 1971 and the action to have it declared void or inexistent
was filed in 1983 is of no moment. To reiterate, an action for reconveyance based
on a void contract is imprescriptible.
2. . It should be noted that private respondents, upon learning that the relevant portion
of Lot No. 13535 was no longer registered in the name of Leon, immediately caused
an investigation to be made for the purpose of finding out the author and the
circumstances behind the execution of the fictitious 1971 Deed of Absolute Sale.
Thus, in less than two (2) months after it was discovered by the NBI that Lacsamana
was in fact a fictitious/non-existent person, private respondents through their
attorney-in-fact instituted on 1983, the present action i.e., barely three (3) years and
nine (9) months after the fraudulent registration on 22 January 1980. Thus, it is said,
the concept of laches is not concerned with the lapse of time but only with the effect
of unreasonable lapse.
NOTES:
1. The rule that a person dealing with registered land has the right to rely on the
Torrens title will not apply when such person has actual knowledge of facts that
would impel a reasonably cautious man to make an inquiry

Given the attendant circumstances, in addition to the defects of the 1971 Deed of
Absolute Sale found, petitioner LBJ cannot claim to be a buyer in good faith. But
even if we concede that petitioner LBJ was innocent of the fraud perpetrated against
private respondents, the records abound with facts which should have impelled it to
investigate deeper into the title of Lacsamana, more so when such effort would not
have entailed additional hardship, nay, would have been quite easy, since the titled co-
owner of Lacsamana is LBJ’s own sister company EL DORADO.