13. UY-V-CA.docx

13 UY V CA

In 1979, private respondent Carmencita Naval-Sai (Naval-Sai) acquired ownership of a parcel of land from her rother! "he land was later sudivided, with the correspondin# titles issued in Naval-Sai$s name in the %e#ister of &eeds of North Cotaato! Susequentl',, Naval-Sai sold ot No! *-+-7 (%C) sd 17.1/ to a certain +o' 0dil on installment, Susequentl' onthe condition that the asolute deed of sale will e eecuted onl' upon full pa'ment! 0dil failed to pa' the amorti2ation, forcin# him to sell his unfinished uildin# on the p ropert' to spouses 3rancisco and ouella 4mandac!  5eanwhile, Naval-Sai orrowed mone' from a certain 6race N#! 0s securit' securit',, Naval-Sai delivered to N# "C"s No! "-..* and No!"-.. coverin# ots No! *-+- and No! *-+-9, respectivel' respectivel'!! N#, on the other hand, orrowed mone' from petitioner and also delivered to the latter the two titles to #uarantee pa'ment of the loan! Sometime thereafter, Naval-Sai learned that petitioner filed a case for recover' of possession (Civil Case No! 1//7) a#ainst 3rancisco 4mandac! +ranch 17 of the %e#ional "rial Court (%"C) in 8idapawan Cit' ruled in favor of petitioner!9 Naval-Sai filed a motion for new trial efore the Court of 0ppeals, ar#uin# that her si#nature in the purported deed of sale presented in the case etween her and petitioner was a for#er'! Civil Case No! 1//7, however, ecame final and eecutor' in //1!1/ "he spouses 4mandac  were e:ected from the propert' propert' and petitioner #ained possession possession of the same! In ;ul' 1999, Naval-Sai filed a Complaint for 0nnulment of &eed with &ama#es efore the same +ranch 17 of the %"C in 8idapawan Cit' a#ainst petitioner! "he su:ect of the complaint was the deed of sale alle#edl' eecuted etween Naval-Sai and petitioner involvin# ots No! *-+- and No! *-+-9! NavalSai pra'ed that the deed of sale e declared null and void a initio ecause the alle#ed sale was a for#er'! Naval-Sai ar#ued that she never sold the lots and that her si#nature in the purported deed of sale is spurious! Naval-Sai filed an 0mended Complaint1. Complaint1. dated ;ul' 9, 1999! She asserted that the su:ect "C"s were alread' cancelled ed ' virtue of the deed of sale! "C" No! "-** was issued in lieu of "C" No! "-..* and "C" No! "-**7 replaced "C" No! "-..! e the ori#inal nal complaint, however, the 0mended Complaint nt was not si#ned ' Naval-Sai, ut ' her counsel!

?e a#ree with the Court of 0ppeals that the action of Naval-Sai is one for reconve'ance! 0lthou#h the desi#nation of the complaint is annulment of deed, and does not include reconve'ance, the facts alle#ed and reliefs sou#ht show that reconve'ance is the end #oal! 0n action for reconve'ance is a le#al and equitale remed' #ranted to the ri#htful owner of land which has een wron#full' or erroneousl' re#istered in the name of another for the purpose of compellin# the latter to transfer or reconve' the land to him! In an action for reconve'ance, the decree of re#istration is respected as incontrovertile! e! ?hat is sou#ht instead is the transfer of the propert',, which has een wron#full' or erroneousl' re#istered in propert' another person@s name, to its ri#htful and le#al owner, or to one with a etter ri#ht! to annul the purported deed of sale ut also to cancel "C"s No! "-** and No! **7 in the name of petitioner! If the reliefs are #ranted and the "C"s are cancelled, the titles to the lots will revert to Naval-Sai as she was the previousl' re#istered owner! "hus, a rulin# in favor of Naval-Sai  would e equal to what an action action for reconve'ance see>s to accomplish! 4n the %esolution of the issue of prescription hin#es on whether the deed of sale was indeed for#ed and, thus, void! =nfortunatel', oth the %"C and the Court of 0ppeals did not ma>e actual findin#s on the alle#ed for#er'! "he lac> of factual findin#s on the alle#ed for#er' from the lower courts prevents us from rulin# on the issue of prescription! 0ppl'in# the fore#oin# cases and without pre:ud#in# the issue of for#er',the for#er' ,the action for reconve'ance will not e su:ect to prescription if the trial court finds that the deed of sale is indeed for#ed, ecause the action would now e ased on a fictitious and void contract! If the trial court finds otherwise, then the issue of prescription would not matter as the sale would stand and remain indin# etween Naval-Sai and petitioner! etition denied! Case was remanded to %"C