Asico v. Heirs of See
CLARIFICATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Petitioners Adelfa Alcantara Asico and Annierose Alcantara Asico were registered owners of Lot 856-B under TCT No. T-139808. On May 22, 1987, TCT No. T-139809 was issued to Ernesto See based on an alleged Deed of Sale dated March 9, 1987, annotated as Entry No. 317077 on the original TCT, purportedly executed by Adelfa but unsigned by the Register of Deeds (RD). Petitioners alleged the deed was forged or inexistent, as Adelfa never signed it, could not have used her married name pre-marriage, and the property was conjugal; respondents Heirs of Ernesto See claimed valid sale under maiden name, with title presumptively regular. 2. Procedural History: RTC Branch 55, Himamaylan City granted respondents' Demurrer to Evidence on October 12, 2019, dismissing for insufficiency of evidence to prove fraud. CA affirmed on December 16, 2022, adding prescription (10 years under Art. 1144(2) CC for constructive trust) and lack of merit, as deed attached to Answer presumed regular despite not formally offered; CA Resolution denied reconsideration on August 18, 2023. 3. The Petition: Petitioners filed Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45, arguing CA overlooked facts (no formal offer of deed, unsigned RD entry proving fraud) and misapplied prescription, claiming inexistent contract imprescriptible under Art. 1410 CC and possession via permitted occupants; sought reversal, reinstatement of complaint, nullity of respondents' titles.
Issue(s)
Whether the CA erred in affirming RTC's grant of Demurrer to Evidence for insufficiency of evidence to prove fraud and inexistence of Deed of Sale. Whether petitioners' action for declaration of nullity of titles and reconveyance had prescribed. Whether the unsigned Entry No. 317077 by RD and unoffered Deed of Sale render Ernesto's TCT void under PD 1529. Whether substantial compliance with Rule 8 Sec. 8 on denying actionable documents was met.
Ruling
Petition GRANTED. CA Decision and Resolution REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Complaint REINSTATED and GRANTED. TCT No. T-139809 (Ernesto See) and TCT No. 091-2016008139 (Heirs) DECLARED null and void. TCT No. T-139808 (Adelfa, married to Roberto) REINSTATED. RD directed to cancel void titles, reinstate original, cancel Entry No. 317077.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The RTC and CA erred in granting Demurrer to Evidence as petitioners showed right to relief via Adelfa's testimony and exhibits proving no deed of sale was presented by respondents, who attached it to Answer but never formally offered, identified, or testified on it under Rule 132 Sec. 34. Per Mato v. CA, evidence not formally offered is inadmissible absent exceptions (duly identified by testimony and in records), neither met here; RTC noted plaintiffs did not produce the deed, but burden was respondents' as it underpinned their defense. Respondents' Demurrer waived their evidence presentation under Rule 33 Sec. 1, leaving petitioners' evidence uncontroverted. Petitioners substantially complied with Rule 8 Sec. 8 denial of actionable document via oath in Complaint and judicial affidavit denying execution/sale, per Spouses Sy v. Westmont Bank and Titan Construction, placing respondents on notice without rigid reply requirement (Rule 6 Sec. 10 permissive). Thus, deed deemed inexistent, supporting fraud claim. On Issue 2: CA erred on prescription; while constructive trust under Art. 1456 CC prescribes in 10 years from registration (Art. 1144(2)), exception applies as petitioners in constructive possession via permitted occupants (Mr. Perido et al.) who recognized their ownership and reported respondents' interference, rendering action imprescriptible. Moreover, sale inexistent (no execution), so action for nullity under Art. 1410 CC ('action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe') governs over trust theory. Adelfa discovered fraud 'lately' via occupants, but possession tolls period; RTC never ruled on prescription, focusing on evidence failure now reversed. On Issue 3: Entry No. 317077 unsigned by RD is spurious per parity from Heirs of Pastora Lozano v. RD, where unsigned owner's duplicate deemed inherently flawed and void without authentication; Sections 54 and 57 PD 1529 mandate RD memorandum and signature for transfers, mandatory for validity. Absent signature, presumptions of regularity (Rule 131 Sec. 3(m)), official duty performance, and title validity negated; fraud proved by clear evidence (unsigned entry, no offered deed), invoking Sec. 53 PD 1529 voiding fraud-procured registrations. Respondents' derivative TCT likewise void; they bore burden to explain via RD witness but waived via Demurrer. On Issue 4: Petitioners' Complaint (pars. 7a-b) and Adelfa's judicial affidavit under oath specifically denied deed's existence/execution, setting forth facts (no appearance before notary, no sale), constituting substantial compliance per Spouses Sy v. Westmont Bank ('party-litigant given fullest opportunity... rather than lose on technicalities') and Toribio v. Bidin. No mandatory reply needed (Rule 6 Sec. 10: 'may file' for actionable documents); denial in initiatory pleading and trial sufficed, avoiding admission of genuineness.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court clarified that a memorandum of a deed of sale annotated on a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT), if unsigned by the Register of Deeds (RD), is spurious on its face, thereby negating the presumptions of regularity in official duties, validity of title, and compliance with registration requisites; this renders the subsequent TCT issued based thereon void under Section 53 of PD 1529 as procured by fraud. By parity of reasoning from Heirs of Pastora Lozano v. Register of Deeds, where unsigned owner's duplicates were deemed spurious, such unsigned entries cannot support title transfers. Additionally, deeds of sale attached to pleadings but not formally offered and identified cannot be given evidentiary weight, especially when defendants file and win a demurrer to evidence, waiving their right to present evidence under Rule 33. Actions to declare inexistent contracts, like forged or non-existent deeds of sale, do not prescribe per Article 1410 of the Civil Code, providing perpetual remedy to true owners in possession. This doctrine safeguards Torrens system integrity against fraudulent registrations while enforcing strict evidentiary compliance in civil actions for title nullity.