G.R. No.

L-67742 October 29, 1987

Melton Gallardo and Teresa Villanueva, petitioners
vs.
Honorable Intermediate Appellate Court, Marta Villanueva Vda. De Edgana, Visitacion
Agana Kipping, Pedro V. Agana, Marcelo V. Agana, Jr., Teresa Agan Santos and Jesus V.
Agana, respondents

Ponente: Justice Edgardo L. Paras

FACTS
On August 10, 1937, petitioners Gallardo and Villanueva bought a parcel of land in a
private document situated in Cavinti Laguna consisting of 81, 300 sqms. in the amount of
P500.00. Said land was previously owned by their uncle, Pedro Villanueva who is also the first
cousin of respondent Marta Villanueva. On January 04, 1944 a Transfer Certificate of Title was
issued in the names of petitioners. On November 17, 1976, respondents filed an Affidavit of
Adverse Claim with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Laguna. Upon learning this, Gallardo
and Villanueva attempted an amicable settlement.
On December 09, 1976, respondent Marta Agana executed a Deed of Conveyance and
Release of Claim, agreeing the conveyance of a 1000 sqm portion to respondent. However,
Villanueva refused to sign the Affidavit of Quit-Claim, resulting for petitioners to file a
complaint for Quieting the Title and Damages with the CFI of Laguna. The CFI rendered a
judgment in respondents’ favor, declaring that the unnotarized private document of sale executed
by petitioners as null and void, as well as the Transfer of Certificate Title to the disputed land.
They also ruled for the land to be surrendered to the late heirs of Villanueva with damages,
which consists of the respondents and the buildings, planting and improvements introduced by
the plaintiffs forfeited in favor of the defendants. Thus, petitioners filed a petition for certiorari,
contending that the Court erred in its decision on multiple aspects of the case, as said sale was
valid and transfer ownership of the land to them.
ISSUE/S
1. Whether or not the trial court erred in holding the private document, as well as the TCT
does not transfer ownership, the same being null and void.
2. Whether or not the trial court erred in holding that appellants cannot acquire ownership
by prescription.
RULING
1. No. Citing the case of Angels v. Land Tenure Administration and Guzman, the Court
reiterates its ruling that the private document executed which presents the sale of land to
the other party does not exclusively establish their right to said land. Which it is valid and
binding, it is not sufficient to convey title or any right since under Article 1358 of the
Civil Code, the acts and contracts which have for their object the creation, transmission,
 modification or extinguishment of real rights over immovable property must appear in a
public document.
As it was found that said private document was not even signed by Pedro Villanueva himself,
the CA’s ruling of declaring said document to be null and void as correct. From this, the TCT
executed should become null and void as well.
2. No. The Court rules that no title to registered land in derogation of that of the registered
owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse possession. Prescription is held as
unavailing by both the registered owner and his hereditary successors. Simply put, the
right to recover registered land is imprescriptible, thus respondents can file claims to
recover said land at any given period.
COMMENT
This case represents the Form of Contracts stated in Articles 1356 to 1358 of the Civil
Code. Article 1356 provides that when the law requires that a contract be in some form in order
that it may be valid and enforceable, that requirement is considered absolute and indispensable.
In the case at bar, the deed of conveyance comes into purview of PD No. 1529. From this, PD
No. 1529 requires the acknowledgement of a notary public in its deed of conveyance thus, given
that the contract between petitioners and Pedro Villanueva is a mere private document, it shall
become null and void.
The requirement of form of contract is not to validate or enforce it but to its efficacy so
that after its existence has been admitted, the party bound may be compelled to execute the
necessary document. From this, Article 1358 necessitates the deed of sale to be in a public
document, the fact that said sale was written in a private one results for the contract executed to
be unenforceable, ergo, no real right was transferred to petitioners from the very beginning.