ROGELIA DACLAG and ADELINO DACLAG (deceased), substituted by RODEL M.

DACLAG, and ADRIAN M. DACLAG vs. ELINO MACAHILIG, ADELA MACAHILIG,

CONRADO MACAHILIG, LORENZA HABER and BENITA DEL ROSARIO
G.R. No. 159578 February 18, 2009

Facts:
Maxima executed a deed of sale for a parcel of land in favor of the petitioners. In
1984 while the land was registered in the name of the petitioners, respondents filed for a
complaint for reconveyance in 1991. The case came before the court when the said lan
Maxima executed a deed of sale for a parcel of land in favor of the petitioners. In
1984 while the land was registered in the name of the petitioners, respondents filed for a
complaint for reconveyance in 1991. The case came before the court when the said lan
Maxima executed a deed of sale for a parcel of land in favor of the petitioners. In
1984 while the land was registered in the name of the petitioners, respondents filed for a
complaint for reconveyance in 1991. The case came before the court when the said lan
Maxima executed a deed of sale for a parcel of land in favor of the petitioners. In 1984 while the
land was registered in the name of the petitioners, respondent filed for a complaint for
reconveyance in 1991. The case came before the court when the said land brought by the
petitioners from Maxima was an unregistered land and one half of the northern portion of such
land was owned by the respondents.
In the decision rendered by the Regional Trial Court, ordered for the reconveyance of the land to
the petitioners’ and respondents was ordered to pay petitioners’ their corresponding share in the
produce of the subject land from the time they were deprived thereof until the possession is
restored to them.
Petitioners contend that the respondents’ action for reconveyance is not anymore applicable since
repsondents’ action was based on fraud and shall be filed within 4 years from the discovery of
the fraud.

Issue:
Whether the petitioners’ contentions are correct.
Whether the decision of the lower court is correct.

Held:
The court ruled that in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action to declare
the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. Since the deed of sale of executed by
Maxima in favor of the petitioners was null and void because Maxima was not the owner of the
land she sold to the petitioners. Being an absolute nullity, the deed is subject to attack anytime.
Moreover, under Article 544, a possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the
possession is legally interrupted. Records show that petitioners received a summons together
with respondents' complaint on August 5, 1991; thus, petitioners' good faith ceased on the day
they received the summons. Consequently, petitioners should pay respondents 10 cavans
of palay per annum beginning August 5, 1991 instead of 1984.