TIBURCIO SAMONTE v CA. et.

al
G.R.NO. 1042223; July 12. 2001
FACTS:
Petitioner, as successor in interest of the Jadol spouses argues that respondents action for reconveyance, filed
only in 1975, had long prescribed considering that the Jadol spouses caused the registration of portion of the
subject lot in their names way back in August 8, 1957. It is petitioners contension that since 18 years had already
lapsed from the issuance of the transfer certificate of title until the time when respondents filed the action in the
court a quo in 1975, the same was it me barred. As it has been indubitably established that fraud attended the
registration of a portion of the subject property, the Jadol spouses were trustees thereof, on behalf of the
surviving heirs of Abao. An action based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the time of its
creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property.

ISSUE: Whether or not the action for reconveyance had already prescribed

HELD: No. Petitioners defense of prescription is untenable. The general rule that the discovery of fraud is deemed
to have taken place upon the discovery of fraud is deemed to have taken place upon registration of real property
because it is considered a constructive notice to all persons does not apply in this case. Instead CA correctly
applied the ruling in Adille v CA, apropos to the instant case, thus It is true that the registration under the Torrens
system is constructive notice of title, but it has likewise been our holding that the Torrens title does not furnish a
shield Por Fraud. It is, therefore, no argument to say that the act of registration is equivalent to notice of
repudiation, assuming there was one, not with understanding the long standing rule that the registration operates
as universal notice of title. In Adille, petitioner therein executed a deed of extrajudicial partition misrepresenting
himself to be the sole heir of his mother when, in fact, she had of her children. As a consequence, petitioner
therein was able to secure title to the land in his name alone his siblings hen filed a case petitioner was only a
trustee on an implied trust of the property. Among the issues resolved by the court in that case was prescription.
Said petitioner registered the property in 1955 and the claim of private respondents therein was prescribed in
1974. Thus in citing Adille, the SC said that in the in instant case the CA rightfully ruled that respondents action for
reconveyance had not yet prescribed.




Spouses Horacio and Felisa Benito v Agapita Saguitan-Ruiz
G.R No. 149906, December 26, 2002

Facts:
The allegations in the complaint constituted a suit for reconveyance and not an action to invalidate certificates of
title grounded on fraud.

Issue: whether or not the prescriptive period for the action is 10 years.

Held: yes. The prescriptive period is 10 years, not one year from entry of decree of registration, otherwise stated.
CA is correct in holding that respondents complaint is in reality an action reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust. This suit prescribes 10 years from the issuance of title over the property.









Adaza and Marundan v CA
G.R No. L-47354; March 21, 1989

Facts: Victor Adaza executed a deed of donation covering a parcel of land in favor of his daughter violeta. When,
however victor died, violeta signed a deed of Waiver wherein she recognized the fact that she owned the subject
land in common with her brother Horacio although the propertys title was issued solely on her name.

Issue: whether or not an implied trust was created in favor of Horacio.

Held: Yes. An implied trust was created in favor of Horacio.

The statement in the Deed of Waiver is Admission of Violeta that she held half of the land in trust for petitioner
Horacio. The execution of the Deed of Donation by Violetas father created an implied trust in favor of Horacio
with respect of half of the property donated. This is in consonance with Article 1449 which provides that, there is
also an implied trust when a donation is made to a person but it appears that although the legal estate is
transmitted to the done, he nevertheless is either to have no beneficial interest or only a part thereof.


Gonzales v IAC
GR No. 66479; Nov. 21, 1991

Facts: Private respondents instituted a complaint for partition against Fausto Soy. They claim that they had a pro-
indiviso share in a parcel of land. Their claim was anchored on the fact that Fausto Soy was the borther of Emelia
Soy, the deceased mother of Rosita Lopez; of Cornelia Soy, deceased mother of Agueda, Amado, and Felipe; and of
Anastacia Soy. Fausto contested the claims of plaintiffs and asserted exclusive title in his name; claiming that the
land in question was never registered in the names of his parents, that he had been the registered owner of the
premises since 1932.

Issue: whether or not the subject land was held in trust by Fausto Soy for his sisters Emilia, Corelia, and Anastacia.

Held: No. the subject land was no held in trust by Fausto Soy for his sisters.

After Fausto Soy, the predecessors- in interest of petitioners, had appeared to be the registered owner of the lot
for more than 30 years, his title indefeasible and his dominical rights over it could no longer be challenged. Any
insinuation as to existence of an implied constructive trust should not be allowed. Private respondent is likewise
wrong in invoking article 1456 as this is a constructive trust arising from operation of law which is not a trust in the
technical sense.


Heirs of Tanak Pangaaraan Patiwayon et. al v Hon. Martinez et al.
G.R No. 49027; June 10, 1985


Facts:
Respondent Tagwalan, to fraud, was able to sucure a title on his own name to the exclusion of his heirs who
equally have a right to a share of the land.

Issues: 1.whether or not the action was for reconveyance
2. Whether ornot the action of the co-heirs had already prescribed having been brought one year from the
date of issuance of OCT.

Held:
1. Yes. Petitioners action was one for reconveyance.
Petitioners main purpose was to recover their rightful share of their inheritance as revealed in their arguments.

2. No. Petitioners actin had not yet prescribed.

Since respondent was able to secure the disputed title thru fraud, an implied trust was created in favor of his co-
heirs. Respondent is deemed to merely hold the property for them and his benefit.

There being an implied trust, the action to recover prescribes after 10 years. Consequently, the present action I not
yet barred by prescription.