G.R. No. 163271 ; January 15, 2010
SPOUSES PATRICIO and MYRNA BERNALES, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF JULIAN SAMBAAN, namely: EMMA S. FELICILDA, ANITA S. SAMBAAN, VIOLETA S. DADSANAN, ABSALON S. SAMBAAN, AGUSTINE S. SAMBAAN, EDITHA S. MANGUIRAN, GRACE S. NITCHA, CLODUALDO S. SAMBAAN, GINA S. SAMBAAN and FE S. YAP, Respondents.

FACTS

Julian Sambaan was the registered owner of a property in Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City, covered by TCT No. T-14202. The respondents and petitioner Myrna Bernales are his children. Myrna, the eldest, is the present possessor of the property. In 1975, Julian, after being ambushed, expressed two wishes to his children: to redeem the property mortgaged to Myrna and her husband Patricio, and that his remains not be brought to Myrna’s house. In 1982, respondent Absalon offered to redeem the property, but petitioners refused. In January 1991, respondents discovered the property was transferred to petitioners’ name under TCT No. T-14204 via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 7, 1970. An NBI examination revealed the signatures of Julian and his wife Guillerma on the deed were forged. Respondents, with Guillerma, filed a Complaint for Annulment of Deed of Absolute Sale and Cancellation of TCT No. T-14204 with Damages. Petitioners claimed the sale was genuine, alleging Julian sold his share of a partitioned lot to them, and presented an Agreement dated December 10, 1970, where a co-owner acknowledged petitioners’ ownership of trees and where Julian was a witness. The RTC ruled for the respondents, declaring TCT No. T-14204 null and void, ordering its cancellation, and awarding damages. The CA affirmed the RTC decision in toto.

ISSUE

The core issue is the authenticity of the Deed of Absolute Sale dated December 7, 1970—a question of fact. The petition raises several grounds, including whether prescription barred the action, the admissibility of expert testimony on forgery, the validity of handwriting comparison, the proof required to establish forgery, the significance of the December 10, 1970 Agreement, and the award of damages.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the CA Decision. The Court held:
1. Prescription did not bar the action. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which operates as a constructive notice. The title (TCT No. T-14204) was issued on March 8, 1972. The complaint was filed on April 13, 1993, beyond the ten-year period. However, the prescriptive period applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession. Here, the respondents were in possession of the property, making the action imprescriptible.
2. The Deed of Absolute Sale was forged. The Court found no reason to deviate from the factual findings of the RTC and CA, which were supported by evidence. The NBI document examiner’s testimony, based on standard specimens and admitted genuine signatures of Julian and Guillerma from other documents, was credible and sufficient to prove forgery. The petitioners failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to overturn this finding. The purported witnesses to the deed did not actually see the signing.
3. The December 10, 1970 Agreement did not confirm the sale. The Agreement pertained only to coconut trees on a neighboring lot and did not mention the sale of the subject property. Julian’s signature as a witness thereon did not validate the forged deed.
4. The award of damages was proper. Moral damages were warranted due to the petitioners’ bad faith in registering a forged deed. Attorney’s fees and litigation expenses were also correctly awarded as the respondents were compelled to litigate.
5. The counterclaim for damages was correctly dismissed. Petitioners failed to substantiate their claim for damages with clear and convincing evidence.
The Supreme Court upheld the nullity of TCT No. T-14204 and the order for its cancellation.