G.R. No. 208450 - SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA CRISTINA CABARRUS, VS. SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA L. PO.[G.R. No. 208497]SPS. PETER L. PO AND VICTORIA L. PO, VS. SPS. ROBERTO ABOITIZ AND MARIA CRISTINA CABARRUS, JOSE MARIA MORAZA, AND ERNESTO ABOITIZ AND ISABEL ABOITIZ.DECISION - Supreme Court E

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is rendered in favor of plaintiffs, and against defendants, declaring the plaintiffs as owner of subject land and ordering the defendants reconvey and/or return to plaintiffs Lot No. 2835; declaring as absolute nullity all the documents of sale involving Lot 2835 executed by the Heirs of Mariano Seno in favor of defendant Roberto Aboitiz and such other documents used in the improvident issuance of titles in the name of defendants, and to cancel the said titles. [35] The Spouses Aboitiz appealed to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 31, 2012, partially affirmed the trial court decision, declaring the Spouses Po as the rightful owner of the land. However, it ruled that the titles issued to respondents Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel should be respected. [36] The Court of Appeals discussed the inapplicability of the rules on double sale and the doctrine of buyer in good faith since the land was not yet registered when it was sold to the Spouses Po. [37] However, it ruled in favor of the Spouses Po on the premise that registered property may be reconveyed to the "rightful or legal owner or to the one with a better right if the title [was] wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name." [38] The Court of Appeals held that the Mariano Heirs were no longer the owners of the lot at the time they sold it to Roberto in 1990 because Mariano, during his lifetime, already sold this to Ciriaco in 1973. [39] It found that the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco and the Spouses Po was duly notarized and was thus presumed regular on its face. [40] Their Memorandum of Agreement did not cancel or rescind the Deed of Absolute Sale but rather strengthened their claim that they "entered into a contract of [s]ale." [41] It likewise ruled that, contrary to the assertion of the Spouses Aboitiz, there was no showing that Ciriaco merely held the property in trust for the Mariano Heirs. [42] It held that the action of the Spouses Po had not yet prescribed because their complaint in 1996 was within the 10-year prescriptive period as the title in favor of the Spouses Aboitiz was issued in 1994. [43] However, the Court of Appeals ruled that the certificates of title of Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel were valid as they were innocent buyers in good faith. [44] The Spouses Aboitiz thus filed their Petition for Review, which was docketed as GR. No. 208450. [45] They argue that the Decision of Branch 55, Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City granting the complaint of the Spouses Po is void for lack of jurisdiction over the matter. [46] They claim that a branch of the Regional Trial Court has no jurisdiction to nullify a final and executory decision of a co-equal branch; [47] it is the Court of Appeals that has this jurisdiction. [48] They likewise assert that the Spouses Po's cause of action has prescribed [49] and allegedly accrued when the Deed of Absolute Sale between the Spouses Po and Ciriaco