G.R.

149750
CASE TITLE: ALCANTARA-DAUS vs. SPOUSES DE LEON
June 16, 2003

FACTS:

Spouses De Leon are the owners of a parcel of land located in the municipality of
San Manuel, Pangasinan containing an area of Four Thousand Two Hundred Twelve
(4,212) square meters more or less. Respondent Hermoso de Leon inherited the said lot
from his father Marcelino de Leon. In the early 1960s, Atty. Florencio San Juan took
care of the documents of de Leons properties. Spouses de Leon were asked to sign
voluminous documents by Atty. San Juan. Respondent Hermoso discovered, after the
death of Atty. San Juan, the conveyance of their properties to his brothers and sisters
and to Atty.Juan and his sisters by virtue of sale or quitclaim when in fact there was
really intention by him to transfer these properties. Hermoso had also discovered that
his signature in the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim was forged. Rodolfo
de Leon, his brother, sold the parcel of land to [Petitioner] Aurora Alcantara. Thus,
spouses de Leon demanded for the annulment of the document and reconveyance but
defendants repudiated/renounce. Petitioner, Aurora Alcantara-Daus averred/declared
that she bought the land in question in good faith and for value on December 1975 and
that she has been in continuous, open possession over the same without opposition
from anyone.

The RTC of Urdaneta, Pangasinan rendered its Decision in favor of herein
petitioner. It ruled that respondents claim was barred by laches, because more than
18 years had passed since the land was sold. It further ruled that since it was a
notarial document, the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was
authentic. However, the Court of Appeals held that laches did not bar respondents form
puirsuing their claim because it may not be invoked to resist the enforcement of a legal
right. It also held that Rodolfo de Leon could not transfer any land to the petitioner as
for he was not the real owner. Declaring that the signature of Hermoso de Leon on the
Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim was a forgery by the Court of Appeals, the
petitioner could not assert that she was a buyer in good faith. Thus, petitioner raises
some issues.

ISSUE:

The petitioner raises the question of whether or not the Deed of Sale executed
by Rodoflo De Leon was perfected and binding upon them. Petitioner also questioned
that the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition with Quitclaim between respondent Hermoso de
Leon, Perlita de Leon and Carlota de Leon in favor of Rodolfo de Leon was overcome by
more than a preponderance of evidence of respondents; therefore, it is authentic.
Aurora Alcantara-Daus also claimed that she was in good faith in buying the land in
question. The petitioner also asserted that the respondents are guilty of laches.











DECISION:

Undoubtedly, Rodolfo de Leon was not the owner of the land at the time of sale.
The transfer of ownership would depend on whether he subsequently acquired
ownership of the land in accordance with Article 1434 of the Civil Code. Thus, the
authenticity and the due execution of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim
should be ascertained. The Court of Appeals ruling that the signature of Hermoso de
Leon on the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Quitclaim was forged is opposed to that
of RTC. But the CA holds this fact since there is a conflict between the holdings of CA
and the trial court. Thus, the SC finds no reason to reverse the factual finding of the
appellate court. The CA disagreed with the petitioners claim that she acquired the land
by virtue of prescription. The law states that no title to registered land in derogation of
that of the registered owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession.

Neither can prescription be allowed against the hereditary successors of the
registered owner, because they merely step into the shoes of the decedent.
Accordingly, since a certificate of registration covers it, the disputed land cannot be
acquired by prescription regardless of petitioners good faith. With the issue of being
guilty of laches by the respondents, the Court of Appeals finds no reason to reverse
their ruling. It is because laches cannot be used to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud
and injustice. Thus, the allegation of laches to prevent the claim of the respondents is
foreclosed since the Deed upon which the petitioner bases her claim is a forgery.
Because of which, the petition is denied and the assailed decision is affirmed.

LAW:

The Court of Appeals judgment and ruling is in accord with the provision that no
title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered owner shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. Neither can prescription be allowed against the
hereditary successors of the registered owner, because they merely step into the shoes
of the decedent. Accordingly, since a certificate of registration covers it, the disputed
land cannot be acquired by prescription regardless of petitioners good faith. With the
issue of being guilty of laches by the respondents, the Court of Appeals finds no reason
to reverse their ruling. It is because laches cannot be used to defeat justice or to
perpetuate fraud and injustice. In addition, Article 1141 of the New Civil Code provides
that real actions over immovable properties prescribe after thirty years. This period for
filing an action was interrupted when a complaint is filed in court. Thereby, Alcantara-
Daus did not really acquire the land through prescription.