MARCELINO LOPEZ, FELISA LOPEZ, LEONARDO LOPEZ AND ZOILO LOPEZ, VS. JOSE ESQUIVEL, JR. AND CARLITO TALENS.

Ruling

Accordingly, the Lopez siblings filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the said RTC judgment. Acting on the Motion of the Lopez siblings, the RTC issued an Order [23] dated 23 May 1996 in which it corrected several errors in its earlier decision, i.e. , a typographical error on the area of the subject property, and a mistake in the conversion of the area of the subject property from square meters to hectares. The RTC also stated in the same Order that it could not direct the amendment of the TCTs in the names of the Lopez siblings, to exclude therefrom the subject property which was adjudged to Esquivel and Talens, as the RTC was sitting only as a land registration court. The RTC, thus, advised Esquivel and Talens to file an action for reconveyance of the subject property and only when Esquivel and Tales succeed in such action can they subsequently cause the registration of the subject property in their names. Following the advice of the RTC, Esquivel and Talens filed with the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 73, on 2 October 1996, a Complaint [24] for Reconveyance and Recovery of Possession of the subject property against the Lopez siblings. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 96-4193 . In their Complaint, Esquivel and Talens alleged that when the Lopez siblings had the land they inherited from Hermogenes registered, they included the subject property, which Hermogenes already conveyed to Hizon in the Quitclaim dated 29 November 1965. Hence, the subject property was erroneously included in TCTs No. 207990 to No. 207997, issued by the Register of Deeds of Marikina, Metro Manila, in the names of the Lopez siblings. The subject property is presently occupied and in the physical possession of the Lopez siblings. [25] In their Answer with Compulsory Counterclaim, the Lopez siblings denied all the allegations of Esquivel and Talens. As their special defenses, the Lopez siblings called attention to the non-compliance by Esquivel and Talens with Section 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure, on non-forum shopping, considering that there was another case before the RTC of Antipolo, Rizal, Branch 71, [26] also involving the subject property and the issues on the genuineness and validity of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Land dated 26 August 1968, executed by Hizon in favor of Esquivel and Talens. The Lopez siblings further averred that the cause of action of Esquivel and Talens was already barred by the statute of limitations and laches since they failed to assert their alleged rights to the subject property for 25 years. [27] The Lopez siblings additionally interposed that the Quitclaim involving the subject property, invoked by Esquivel and Talens, was ineffective, because by the time it was executed by Hermogenes in favor of Hizon on 29 November 1965, Hermogenes had already sold his entire 19.4888-hectare land, of which the subject property was part, to Aguilar on 31 July 1959. The Lopez siblings finally argued that the sai