Property sold without the consent of the owner

Property sold without the consent of the owner "My brother and I are the co-owners of a house and lot. I left the management of the said property to him because I am working in the province. I discovered that he sold the entire property to Mr. Javier and the latter registered the sale hence, the title of the property was canceled and transferred to his name. I found out that my signature appearing in the said deed was forged. I demanded from Mr. Javier to return my share on the property but he claimed that I can no longer recover anything from him as the sale happened more than ten (10) years ago. How can I recover the said property from Mr. Javier? Please guide me on this matter BrendaliDear Brendali, You can still recover your share of the property. This is in consonance with Article 1410 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines which states that “the action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.” The contract entered by your brother selling the whole property to Mr. Javier is not valid with respect to your proportionate share on the said property. This finds support under Article 1409 of the said law which provides:“The following contracts are inexistent and void from the beginning: (1) xxx xxx(2) Those which are absolutely simulated or fictitious xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx” (Emphasis supplied)Relative thereto, Article 1318 of same law states that “there is no contract unless the following requisites concur:(1) Consent of the contracting parties (2) Object certain which is the subject matter of the contract(3) Cause of the obligation which is established.” (Emphasis supplied)Your consent was not obtained by your brother when he sold the entire property hence, the sale involving your share is void. In the case of Uy vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 173186, September 16, 2015), the Supreme Court through Honorable Associate Justice Francis H. Jardeleza states:“The deed of sale executed by Maxima in favor of petitioners was null and void, since Maxima was not the owner of the land she sold to petitioners, and the one-half northern portion of such land was 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 to declare the inexistence of a void contract does not prescribe. xxx An action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible. As long as the land wrongfully registered under the Torrens system is still in the name of the person who caused such registration, an action in personam will lie to compel him to reconvey the property to the real owner. (Citations omitted)In Santos v. Heirs of Dominga Lustre, the complaint alleged that the deed of sale was simulated by forging the signature of the original registered owner. We ruled in favor of imprescribility applying the doctrine that the action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate of title was obtained by means of a fictitious deed of sale is virtually an action for the declaration of its nullity, which does not prescribe.”Applying the above cited decision in your situation, the claim of Mr. Javier that you can no longer recover your proportionate share on the property sold by your brother since more than 10 years have elapsed has no legal basis. The appropriate action that you may file against Mr. Javier is an action for reconveyance based on a void contract which is imprescriptible.This opinion is solely based on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. The opinion may vary when the facts are changed or further elaborated. We hope that we were able to enlighten you on the matter." - https://www.affordablecebu.com/