7/24/2019 Daclag vs Macahilig

1/2

[This case is the resolution of an MR filed by the petitioners Daclag. Facts ofthe 1st case are as follows.]Maxima Macahilig is one of the 7 children of Candido (+) and Gregoria (+) who executed a a Deed of Extra-Judicial partitition with the heirs of her now deceased siblings.In 1982, Maxima entered into She later executed a Statement of Conformity, conf

irming1. the proper execution of the Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition,2. that five parcels [one of which being Parcel One, the lot in question] of land in the deed were declared in her name for taxation purposes, although said lands were actually the property of her deceased parents Candido and Gregoria Macahilig;In 1984, Maxima sold Parcel One to spouses Adelino and Rogelia Daclag (petitioners) as evidenced by a Deed of SaleObjecting to the sale, Macahilig heirs filed a complaint for recovery of possession and ownership, cancellation of documents and damages against Maxima and thebuyers contending that Maxima had no right to sell the land in question. Respondents alleged that they were the lawful owners and previous possessors of the one

half northern portion of Parcel One by virtue of a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition; that since they were all residents of Caloocan City, their land was possessed by their first cousin, Penicula Divison Quijano, Maxima's daughter, as tenant thereon, as she was also in possession of the one half southern portion as tenant of the heirs of Mario Macahilig; that sometime in 1983, upon request of Maxima and out of pity for her as she had no share in the produce of the land, Penicula allowed Maxima to farm the land; that without their knowledge, Maxima illegally sold on May 23, 1984, the entire riceland to petitioners, who are now in possession of the land, depriving respondents of its annual producePetitioners objected the action as Rogelia had been the registered owner of theentire riceland since 1984 as evidenced by OCT No. P-13873; her title had becomeincontrovertible after one year from its issuance; they purchased the subject land in good faith and for value from co-defendant Maxima who was in actual physi

cal possession of the property and who delivered and conveyed the same to them;they were now in possession and usufruct of the land since then up to the present; respondents were barred by laches for the unreasonable delay in filing the caseThe Supreme Court eventually held that reconveyance of the subject land to respondents is proper, respondent Macahilig heirs being the true owners. Respondentshad sufficiently established that Parcel One, was not owned by Maxima at the time she sold the land to petitioners.An action for reconveyance prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference beingthe date of registration of the deed or the date of issuance of the certificateof title over the property. Records show that while the land was registered in the name of petitioner Rogelia in 1984 after the sale, the instant complaint for

reconveyance was filed by the respondents in 1991, and was thus still within theten-year prescriptive period.In Ong v. Olasiman in which a claim of good faith was raised by petitioner who bought an unregistered land, we held:Finally, petitioners' claim of good faith does not lie too as it is irrelevant:The issue of good faith or bad faith of the buyer is relevant only where the subject of the sale is registered land and the purchaser is buying the same from the registered owner whose title to the land is clean x x x in such case the purchaser who relies on the clean title of the registered owner is protected if he isa purchaser in good faith for value. Since the properties in question are unregistered lands, petitioners as subsequent buyers thereof did so at their peril. Their claim of having bought the land in good faith, i.e., without notice that so

me other person has a right to or interest in the property, would not protect them if it turns out, as it actually did in this case, that their seller did not own the property at the time of the sale.

7/24/2019 Daclag vs Macahilig

2/2

[Resolution of the MR]We have earlier ruled that respondents' action for reconveyance had not prescribed, since it was filed within the 10-year prescriptive period. However, a reviewof the factual antecedents of the case shows that respondents' action for reconveyance was not even subject to prescription. The deed of sale executed by Maxima in favor of petitioners was null and void, since Maxima was not the owner of t

he land she sold to petitioners, and the one-half northern portion of such landwas owned by respondents. Being an absolute nullity, the deed is subject to attack anytime, in accordance with Article 1410 of the Civil Code that an action todeclare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. An action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible.when there is a showing of such illegality, the property registered is deemed tobe simply held in trust for the real owner by the person in whose name it is registered, and the former then has the right to sue for the reconveyance of the property