SPOUSES
ANITA AND G.R. No. 169898
HONORIO
AGUIRRE,
Petitioners, Present:
Ynares-Santiago, J. (Chairperson),
- versus - Austria-Martinez,
Chico-Nazario,
and
Nachura, JJ.
HEIRS OF
LUCAS VILLANUEVA,
NAMELY: JOSE T. VILLANUEVA,
PABLO T. VILLANUEVA, PEDRO T.
VILLANUEVA, RODOLFO T.
VILLANUEVA, DELIA V. DELA Promulgated:
TORRE,
JUANITA V. INGLES,
&
SABELITO V. GELITO,
Respondents.
x ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:
In our decision dated
Respondents filed a motion for
reconsideration alleging that the Court erroneously applied the law on
prescription. They claimed that
petitioners may not be considered as possessors in good faith and with just
title, hence, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character
which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years. Respondents also allege that the Court erred
in holding that their action for annulment or declaration of nullity of deed of
exchange, tax declarations and recovery of ownership and possession with
damages, is barred by laches.
The motion for reconsideration is
denied for the following reasons:
(1) Respondents’ action for
reconveyance, based on the fraudulent inclusion of the subject land in the Deed
of Exchange, is barred by extinctive prescription. Article
1456 of the Civil Code provides that a person acquiring property through fraud
becomes by operation of law a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property who may thus
file an action for reconveyance. To
determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for reconveyance,
the plaintiff’s possession of the disputed property is material. An action for reconveyance based on an
implied trust prescribes in ten years. The reference point of the ten-year
prescriptive period is the date of the registration of the deed or the issuance
of the title. The prescriptive period
applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the
plaintiff is not in possession of the property.
However, if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also
remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title
and possession of the property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance,
if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title,
an action that is imprescriptible.[1]
In the instant case, respondents
are not in possession of the property.
The fraudulent Deed of Exchange dated
(2) Respondents were not able to prove that they and their
predecessors-in-interest possessed the subject lot in the concept of an
owner. They did not actually occupy the
land, and except for gathering the produce of 2 fruit bearing trees on the
land, no other act of ownership was established by them. Their predecessors-in-interest’s alleged act
of giving permission to Magdalena Tupas to occupy the land, could not be safely
relied upon as an exercise of ownership especially so when there is a contrary
testimony that such permission was in fact given by the Tirols (petitioner’s
predecessors) and not by respondents’ predecessors-in-interest. Thus, while petitioners may not really be
in good faith (because they did not exercise reasonable diligence to
ascertain (1) who gave permission to Magdalena to occupy the land; and (2) why the
tax declaration of the land was in the name of Trinidad Tirol and not in the
name of Ciriaco Tirol, from whom the parents of petitioner Anita Aguirre
acquired the property), equity dictates
that the lot be awarded to them (petitioners) considering their 26 year
possession of the same lot from the execution of the deed in 1971, up to the
time respondents filed the complaint in 1997.
ACCORDINGLY,
the instant motion for reconsideration is DENIED
with FINALITY.
SO
ORDERED.
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the conclusions in the above resolution were
reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the
opinion of the Court’s Division.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, it is hereby certified that the
conclusions in the above Resolution were reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Acting Chief Justice