SEBASTIAN ENRIQUEZ vs.CA GR.NO.

L-48978
This is a petition for review of the decision of the CA affirming that of the trial
court declaring private respondent Adalia enriquez to be co-owner of the
property in question.
FACTS OF THE CASE:
Petioner Sebastian Enriquez is the father of his co- petitioner Cresencio
Enriquez. On the other hand, private respondent Adalia Enriquez is the wife
of Sebastian. They were married on February 1957. For no reason not
disclosed in the record, they got separated.
It was then during their marriage they acquired a property in which was the
subject of the issue, but because Sebastian, according to Adalia, was
involved in a litigation, she was made to appear as the vemdee in the deed
of sale, thereafter cresencio constructed an apartment on the property from
the money borrowed by him using the lot itself as collateral, since it was
titled in his name.
The building consisted of six apartment, and one of which the spouses
occupied until they got separated.Adalia continue to stay peacefully in the
same apartment they were occupying before. In 1970, Cresencio leased the
whole property to ESSO without the knowledge of Adalia, and later
demanded her to vacate as the company was about to demolish the building
evidently to use the lot for other purposes.
An action was then instituted by Adalia for the recovery of the property
alleging that the property belongs to the conjugal partnership and that
Cresencio is only a mere trustee of the property in question. Cresencio
contented that assuming the allegation that a trust really existed when the
title was issued in his name, and that he is just a mere trustee, the action for
recovery based on it has already prescribed because the 10 year period for
the it had just elapsed.
ISSUE:
WHETHERE OR NOT THE CONTENTION OF CRESENCIO THAT THE ACTION FOR
RECOVERY BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF TRUST HAS BEEN ALREADY
PRESCRIBED?
RULING:

NO. the theory of Adalia is that an express trust so the claim that the action
has prescribed is unatenable. The action to compel the trustee to convey the
property registered in his name for the benefit of the cestui for trust does not
prescribed. If at all, it is only on or after May 19, 1970 when private
respondent demanded the reconveyance of her share from the defendants
which was ignored by the latter when trust may be deemed to have been
repudiated. The complaint was filed on October 12,1970.
PETITION DENIED.