Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Francisco vs. Rojas
Francisco vs. Rojas
RODOLFO V. FRANCISCO, true and absolute owners of Lots 1, 2, 3, and 4 of Plan Psu-04-001463;3
Petitioner,
Order dated February 22, 1978, directing the Land Registration Commission to
- versus- G.R. No. 167120 issue a decree of registration over the parcels of land covered by the Decision
dated September 15, 1977;4
Present:
VELASCO, JR., J., Chairperson, Order dated March 23, 1998, directing the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal to
EMILIANA M. ROJAS, and the PERALTA, ABAD, MENDOZA, and issue new certificates of title covering the same parcels of land, which are now
Legitimate Heirs of JOSE A. ROJAS, LEONEN,JJ. technically identified as Lots 6-B, 6-C, 6-D and 6-E, in relation to Lot 6-A of Plan Psu
namely: JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II, 04-083681;5 and
ROLANDO M. ROJAS, JOSE M. ROJAS, JR., Promulgated:
CARMELITA ROJAS, all represented by Order dated May 8, 2000, requiring the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal to
JOSE FERDINAND M. ROJAS II., April 23, 2014 show cause why she should not be cited in contempt of court for not issuing new
Respondents. certificates of title covering the same parcels of land.6
PERALTA, J.: [Respondent] Emiliana M. Rojas is the widow of the late Jose Rojas, while the
other [respondents] are the children of the spouses. For purposes of this
This petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the 1997 Revised Rules of disposition, [respondents] shall hereafter be collectively referred to as the Rojases.
Civil Procedure (Rules) assails the December 22, 2003 Decision1 and February 7,
On the other hand, x x x Rosalina V. Francisco, [petitioner] Rodolfo V. Francisco,
2005 Resolution 2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 62449, which and Carmela V. Francisco, hereafter collectively referred to as the Franciscos,
nullified the decision and orders of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of are the applicants for registration in Land Registration Case No. 95-0004 from
Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, and its predecessor, Court of First Instance whence the challenged decision and orders sprung.7
(CFI) of Rizal, Branch 10, in Land Registration Case (LRC) Case No. 95-0004
(formerly LRC Case No. N- 9293), captioned In Re: Application for Registration of Subject of the controversy is a portion of the 3,181.74 hectares of a vast track of
Land Title, Rosa/ina V Francisco, et al., Applicants, to wit: land, known as the Hacienda de Angono, in Angono, Rizal. The entire hacienda
used to be owned by one Don Buenaventura Guido y Santa Ana upon whose death
Decision dated September 15, 1977, declaring Rosalina V. Francisco, Carmen V .
Francisco, Carmela V. Francisco and herein petitioner Rodolfo V. Francisco as the 3
CA rollo, pp. 37-40;
1 4
Penned by Presiding Justice Cancio C. Garcia (retired member of the Supreme Id. at 42;
5
Court), with Associate Justice Renato C. Dacudao and Danilo B. Pine, concurring; Id. at 46-50;
6
Rolla, pp. 86-101; Id. at 54;
2 7
Penned by Associate Justice Danilo B. Pine, with Associate Justices Renato _________________.
C. Dacdudao and Perlita J. Tria-Tirona, concurring; rolla, pp. 102-104;
2
left a portion thereof, consisting of the said 3,181.74 hectares, to his two (2) sons – TCT (23377) RT-M-0002 – was issued.
Francisco Guido and Hermogenes Guido.
After the reconstitution, the heirs presented before the Registry of Deed of
Sometime in September 1911, Decreto No. 6145, covering the same 3,181.74- Morong the same Extra-Judicial Settlement of Estate With Quitclaim.
hectare portion of Hacienda de Angono was issued in favor of the brothers
Francisco and Hermogenes. On the basis thereof, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) Subsequently, the entire parcel of land covered by Decreto No. 6145 was
No. 633 over the same 3,181.74 hectares was issued in the names of the two (2) subdivided into twenty-one (21) lots and twenty-one (21) different certificates of
brothers. title were issued in lieu of the reconstituted TCT No. 23377.
Several years later, or on May 12, 1933, OCT No. 633 was cancelled, and, in lieu Thereafter, the heirs who executed the aforesaid document of extra-judicial
thereof, Transfer Certificate of Title No. 23377 was issued. Nine (9) years later, or settlement, including the now spouses Jose Rojas and Emiliana Rojas, sold the
sometime in 1942, the heirs of Francisco property to Pacil Management Corporation (Pacil, for short), and new titles were
issued in favor of Pacil on June 26, 1976. Three (3) months later, or on August 26,
The CA failed to mention Carmen V. Francisco as one of the applicants. and 1976, Pacil reconveyed all the 21 lots to the former owners. On August 25, 1978,
Hermogenes adjudicated among themselves the same 3,181.74 hectares and fourteen (14) of the 21 lots were exchanged for shares of stock of Interport
transferred the one-half (½) portion thereof to Jose A. Rojas, predecessor-in- Resources Corporation. On April 25, 1980, all the named heirs in the same
interest of the [respondents] Rojases. Allegedly, the adjudication was formalized Extra- Judicial Settlement of Estate With Quitclaim renounced their rights over
by the heirs of Francisco and Hermogenes only on December 17, 1973, when the remaining portion of the 3,181.74 hectares in favor of their co-heir Alfredo
they purportedly executed an Extra- Judicial Settlement of Estate With Quitclaim. Guido, Sr., in exchange for monetary considerations.
Confusingly, some few months thereafter, or on August 20, 1974, the heirs of It appears, however, that on August 13, 1976, barely five (5) months from the time
Don Buenaventura Guido y Santa Ana, represented by their lawyer, requested Alfredo Guido, Sr. filed his petition for reconstitution of TCT No. 23377 on March
the then Land Registration Commission (now, Land Registration Authority) to 29, 1976, which petition was approved on the same date, an Application for
issue the corresponding original certificate of title based on Decreto No. 6145, Registration of Title over four (4) parcels of land (lots 1, 2, 3 and 4), as shown
evidently because OCT No. 633 which was earlier issued on the basis of the same in plan Psu-04- 001463, which lots are presently alleged by the [respondents]
Decreto was previously cancelled. The request, however, was denied by the said Rojases to be “overlapping a portion of the area covered by TCT No. 23377,” x x x
office on January 8, 1976. was filed with the then Court of First Instance (CFI) of Rizal, Branch 10, by
Rosalina, Rodolfo, Carmela and Carmen, all surnamed Francisco (the Franciscos),
Meanwhile, on March 29, 1976, Alfredo Guido, Sr., representing the other heirs, about which petition the Rojases now claim to be unaware of. Raffled to Branch 10
filed with the Registry of Deeds of Morong a petition for reconstitution of TCT of the court, the petition was docketed in the same court as Land Registration
No. 23377, alleging that the original of the same title could not be located in Case No. N-9293 x x x.
the files of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal when he and his co-heirs sought the
registration of their aforementioned [Extra]-Judicial Settlement of Estate With
Quitclaim. The petition was supported by the owner’s duplicate copy of the Acting thereon, the said court issued on June 22, 1977 an Order of General Default
title sought to be reconstituted. premised on the fact that despite notice which was duly published, posted and
served in accordance with law, “no person has appeared as respondent in the
On the same date that Guido, Sr. filed the petition for reconstitution, the same case or filed an answer within the time for that purpose allowed, with the
was granted and a reconstituted certificate of title exception of the Director of Lands, the Provincial Government of Rizal and the
3
Municipal Government of Binangonan, Rizal thru their counsel, who are given court directed the Commissioner of Land Registration to issue the desired decree
ten (10) days from today within which to file their formal opposition.” x x x x x x.
Eventually, in the herein assailed Decision dated September 15, [1977], CFI To complicate matters, it appears that on August 22, 1979, in the then Court of
Branch 10, acting as a land registration court, declared the applicant Franciscos First Instance of Rizal, Branch 155, stationed in Pasig, the Republic of the
“the true and absolute owners of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Plan Psu-04-00460,” thus: Philippines, represented by the Solicitor General, filed a complaint for declaration
of nullity of Decreto No. 6145 and the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 23377
against the heirs of Francisco Guido and Hermogenes Guido, the spouses Jose Rojas
“WHEREFORE, the Court hereby declares the following the true and Emiliana Rojas, the Pacil Development Corporation and Interport Resources
and absolute owners of Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 of Plan Psu-04- [001463] Corporation, it being alleged in the same complaint that both the Decreto No.
in the ratio [as] set opposite their respective names: 6145 and the owner’s copy of TCT No. 23377 were false, spurious and fabricated
and were never issued by virtue of judicial proceedings for registration of land
Rosalina Villamor Francisco, widow, of legal age and residing at either under Act No, 496, as amended, otherwise known as the Land
Angono, Rizal --------------------------------------------------- 5/8 Registration Act, or under any other law. The complaint for annulment was
docketed as Civil Case No. 34242.
Carmen V. Francisco, single, of legal age and residing at Angono, Rizal
--- After trial, the CFI of Rizal, Branch 155, rendered a decision dismissing the
------- 1/8 Republic’s complaint and declaring Decreto No. 6145 and TCT No. 23377 “genuine
and authentic.” We quote the pertinent portions of the decision:
Rodolfo V. Francisco, married to Teofila Gil, of legal age and residing
at Angono, Rizal --------------------------------- 1/8 “Considering that Decree 6145 and TCT No. 23377 are genuine and
authentic, the decree cannot now be reopened or revived.
Carmela V. Francisco, single, of legal age and residing at Angono, Rizal
----------------------------------------------------- 1/8 ‘A decree of registration binds the land and quiets title thereto, is
conclusive upon all persons and cannot be reopened or revived after
The title to be issued shall contain the inscriptions: the lapse of one year after entry of the decree (Ylarde vs. Lichauco, 42
SCRA 641)
‘Lots 2 and 3 of Plan Psu-04-001463 are hereby reserved for the future
widening of Manila East Road.’ WHEREFORE, premises considered, this case is hereby dismissed.
Likewise, the counterclaims of the defendants are dismissed.”
Once this decision becomes final, let an order for the issuance of decree From the same decision, the Republic went on appeal to [the Court of Appeals] in
issue. CA-G.R. CV No. 12933. And, in a decision promulgated on July 12, 1988, [the CA]
dismissed the Republic’s appeal and affirmed the appealed decision of the Rizal CFI,
SO ORDERED” x x x Branch 155.
The aforequoted decision having become final and executory, the Franciscos filed In time, the Republic moved for a reconsideration with an alternative prayer
with the same court (CFI, Branch 10), a petition for the issuance of a decree of declaring Decreto No. 6145 and its derivative titles authentic except with respect
registration. And, in the herein assailed Order dated February 22, 1978, the to such portions of the disputed property which were either: (1) possessed and
4
owned by bona fide occupants who already acquired indefeasible titles thereto; or to submit a subdivision plan of Lot 6 of the subdivision plan (LRC) Psd-240150
(2) possessed and owned by bona fide occupants and their families with lengths covered by TCT No. 2095, together with the corresponding technical descriptions
of possession which amounted to ownership. duly approved by the Regional Technical Director by segregating therefrom the
parcels of land described as Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 in plan Psu-04-001463 decided in
In a resolution promulgated on September 14, 1988, [the CA] denied the motion, favor of the applicants and the issuance of new [transfer certificates of title]by
saying: the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal, in accordance with the decision of the
Supreme Court” x x x.
“After careful consideration of the motion for reconsideration and
defendants-appellees’ opposition thereto, We find no cogent reason On March [13,] 1995, the Franciscos, as applicants a quo moved for a transfer of
to justify the reversal of Our decision dated July 12, 1988, hence the venue to the newly created RTC of Binangonan, Rizal. The case was then raffled
motion is DENIED. to Branch 69 of said court, whereat the same application for registration was
docketed as Land Registration Case No. 95-0004.
Likewise DENIED, is the alternative prayer to modify the
aforementioned Decision ‘to the extent that the recognition of the In the herein other assailed Order dated March 23, 1998, the Binangonan RTC
authenticity of Decree No. 6145 and TCT No. 23377 shall not directed the Register of Deeds of Rizal to issue transfer certificates of title in favor
affect and prejudice the parcels of land already possessed and of the applicant Franciscos, to wit:
owned by bona fide occupants who have already acquired
indefeasible title thereto’, for to grant said alternative prayer would “WHEREFORE, the Register of Deeds of Morong, Rizal is hereby
be to run roughshod over Our decision adverted to.” directed to issue a new transfer certificate of title covering the subject
parcels of land which are now technically identified as Lot 6-B, Lot 6-C,
Undaunted, the Republic, again thru the Solicitor General, went to [this Court] on Lot 6-D, and Lot 6-E in relation to Lot 6-A of plan Psu-04-083681 in
a petition for review in G.R. No. 84966, entitled [“Republic of the Philippines vs. accordance with the recommendation of the Land Registration Authority
Court of Appeals”]. In a decision promulgated on November 21, 1991, [the Court] in its Supplementary Report dated December 13, 1993 and [the] decision
affirmed the decision of the [CA], subject to certain conditions therein stated, thus: of the Supreme Court in Republic vs. CA, 204 SCRA 160; [179] – in the
names of applicants who are hereby declared to be the owners and bona
“ACCORDINGLY, the decision of the Court of Appeals in CA-No. 12933 is fide occupants of the land in question, with possession for more than 30
AFFIRMED subject to the herein declared superior rights of bona fide years since the time that started way back during the American
occupants with registered titles within the area covered by the regime, by themselves and their predecessors-in-interest, which has
questioned decree and bona fide occupants therein with lengths of ripened into ownership, in the following proportion or interest, to wit:
possession which had ripened to ownership, the latter to be determined
in an appropriate proceeding. Carmen V. Francisco, married to Thomas Whalen, of legal age, and
residing at Angono, Rizal – 1/3
SO ORDERED” (204 SCRA 160, 181)
Rodolfo V. Francisco, married to Teofila Gil, of legal age, and residing
Two (2) years after [this Court] handed down its aforementioned decision, a at Angono, Rizal – 1/3
Supplementary Report, dated December 13, 1993, was submitted in LRC Case
No. N-9293 by Director Silverio Perez of the Land Registration Authority, Carmela V. Francisco, single, of legal age, and residing at Angono, Rizal – 1/3
recommending to the court that “the applicants (i.e., the Franciscos) be ordered
5
Let the technical descriptions of Lots 6-B, 6-C, 6-D and 6-E, of Plan 04- hereby declared NULL and VOID.
083681, as submitted to this court, be used in the issuance of No costs.
[certificates] of [title] in favor of the applicants, in lieu of the technical
descriptions of Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4 of Plan Psu-04-001463. SO ORDERED.10
SO ORDERED.” x x x
As to the appropriateness of the petition, the CA rejected petitioner’s supposition
Said Order not having been complied with, the Binangonan RTC issued the that the issue to be resolved is only a pure question of law, that is, the
herein last assailed Order dated May 8, 2000, requiring Atty. Dian Lao of the determination or interpretation of what an “appropriate proceeding” is as referred
Morong Registry to show cause within ten (10) days from receipt why she should 11
to in the dispositive portion of Republic v. Court of Appeals (Guido). It held
not be held in contempt of court for failing to implement the earlier Order of
that since the petition raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction on the part of the land
March 23, 1998 x x x.
registration court, the remedy of certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules properly
applies. Anent the timeliness of the petition, the CA overlooked the procedural
Such was the state of things when, on January 3, 2001, the herein [respondents] –
lapse of filing the petition beyond the 60-day reglementary period in the
the Rojases – filed the x x x petition for certiorari and prohibition [before the
interest of substantial justice given the compelling merit of the petition.
CA] for the purpose already stated at the threshold hereof, claiming that they
came to know of the existence of Land Registration Case No. 95-0004 only
“sometime in June 2000” when a real estate agent by the name of Florentina
On the merits of respondents’ petition, the CA ruled that the challenged
Rivera discovered the same and brought it to their knowledge x x x.8
decision and orders were indeed issued without or in excess of jurisdiction. It
opined:
Meantime, on July 29, 2000, the subject parcels of land were eventually
registered in the names of petitioner and his sisters, Carmen and Carmela with the
issuance of TCT Nos. M-102009, M-102010, M-102011, and M-102012, covering
Unquestionably, the title covering the lots applied for was made subject to the
lots 6-E, 6-C, 6-D, and 6-B, respectively.9
“superior rights” not only of those already with registered titles within the area,
but also of those bona fide occupants whose lengths of possession have ripened
On December 22, 2003, the CA ruled in favor of respondents. The
into ownership to be determined in a proper proceeding.
fallo of the Decision declared:
Notwithstanding, We cannot subscribe to [the Franciscos’] theory that the ruling
WHEREFORE, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly,
in Republic vs. Court of Appeals and [Antonina] Guido, et al., supra, allowed what
a writ of certiorari is hereby issued ANNULLING and SETTING ASIDE the
otherwise is a void proceeding for lack of jurisdiction.
Decision dated September 15, 1977, and the subsequent Orders dated
February 22, 1978, March 23, 1978 and May 8, 2000 of the
Indeed, the existence of a valid title covering the land sought to be registered is
respondent court and its predecessor, the then CFI of Rizal, Branch 10,
the determinative factor in this case as far as the matter of jurisdiction to
in Land Registration Case No. 95-0004. Consequently, Transfer
entertain the application for registration is concerned.
[Certificate] of Title [Nos.] M-102012, M-102010, and M- 102009
issued pursuant thereto by the Register of Deeds at Morong, Rizal are
8 10
Rollo, pp. 87-95. (Emphasis omitted; italics in the original; citations omitted). Id. at 100. (Emphasis in the original)
9
Id. at 135-138. Rosalina V. Francisco died sometime in 1987 (Id. at 145)
6
In Orchard Realty and Development Corp. vs. Republic, 364 SCRA 100, 107,11
where the previous registration of the subject parcel of land being applied for was And being null and void, such decision and orders can never become final and
subsequently declared null and void by a competent court, the Supreme Court executory. Hence, an action to declare them void is imprescriptible. In the
made clear: graphic words of Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 309 SCRA 110, 122:
“A land covered by a title which is outstanding cannot be “x x x. (A) void judgment is not entitled to the respect accorded to a
subject of an application for registration unless the existing title which valid judgment, but may be entirely disregarded or declared
has become indefeasible is first nullified by a proper court proceeding, x inoperative by any tribunal in which effect is sought to be given to it. It
x x.” is attended by none of the consequences of a valid adjudication. It
has no legal or binding effect or efficacy for any purpose or at any
Thus, unless and until an existing torrens title is declared a nullity, or, for that place. It cannot affect, impair or create rights. It is not entitled to
matter, declared authentic but subject to any “superior rights,” as herein, it enforcement and is, ordinarily, no protection to those who seek to
remains subsisting as it is, and an application for registration of the land covered enforce. All proceedings founded on the void judgment are
thereunder, or any portion thereof, cannot, as yet, be entertained. themselves regarded as invalid. In other words, a void judgment is
regarded as a nullity, and the situation is the same as it would be if
Here, at the time the application for original registration was filed on August 13, there were no judgment x x x.”12
1976 and even when the decision of the then CFI of Rizal granting the application
was rendered on September 15, 1977, there was no doubt as to the Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the aforesaid Decision, but the CA
authenticity of TCT No. 23377 covering the lots in question, considering that the resolved to deny the same on February 7, 2005; hence, this petition which raises
action for annulment of said TCT was filed by the Solicitor General only on August the following issues:
22, 1979. Hence, by the simple fact that the lots in question were already covered
by an existing title at the time [the Franciscos] filed their application for WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSAILED LAND REGISTRATION PROCEEDINGS IN LRC NO.
registration, the then CFI of Rizal is bereft of jurisdiction to take cognizance 95-0004 [RTC]; LRC NO. N-9293 [CFI] IS THE “APPROPRIATE PROCEEDING”
thereof, much less grant the same. Accordingly, herein [land registration court] CONTEMPLATED IN THIS HONORABLE COURT’S PRONOUNCEMENT IN
was without authority to order the issuance of new titles covering the same lots. “GUIDO CASE”? IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WHETHER OR NOT 102010 and M-102012
were acquired by Citimar Realty & Development Corporation (Citimar) by virtue of
Moreover, [if We were] to follow [the Franciscos’] reasoning, We would, in effect, a Deed of Absolute Sale executed on September 7, 2001; that TCT Nos. M-
be sanctioning a collateral attack on an existing title, which simply runs smack 102010 and M-102012 were cancelled and replaced by TCT Nos. M-107343 and M-
against the well-settled rule that “a title may be challenged only in a proceeding for 107344, respectively, in the name of Citimar; that pursuant to a Memorandum of
that purpose, not in an application for registration of a land already registered in Agreement dated January 31, 2006, respondents, for valuable consideration,
the name of another person” (Carvajal v. CA, 280 SCRA 351, 360). ceded their rights over the lots covered by said TCTs in favor of Citimar; that on
account of the agreement, Citimar, which is the successor-in-interest of petitioner
For want of jurisdiction then, We inevitably rule and so hold that the decision with respect to the already cancelled TCT Nos. M-102010 and M-102012, has been
dated September 15, 1977, in LRC No. 95-0004 adjudging [the Franciscos] the subrogated to the rights of respondents relative to the parcels of land covered
true and absolute owners of the subject parcels of land therein sought to be thereby; and that, in effect, there is no longer any controversy that needs to be
registered, and the orders issued in consequence thereof, are null and void ab initio. resolved by the Court with regard to the rightful ownership of the lots
11 12
G.R. No. 84966, November 21, 1991, 204 SCRA 160. Rollo, pp. 98-100.
7
mentioned because Citimar acquired the rights pertaining to the party-litigants.13
a person to be a party to the judgment sought to be annulled. Nevertheless,
Respondents prayed that the MOA executed between them and Citimar be
considering that the petition before the CA essentially alleged lack of
approved and that the present case be limited to the matter of determining the
jurisdiction and denial of due process – two grounds upon which a petition
validity of TCT No. M-102009 and its derivatives.
for annulment of judgment may be based (aside from extrinsic fraud)15 – We
deem it wise to ignore the procedural infirmity and resolve the substantial
Despite no objection interposed by petitioner, the Court resolved to deny merits of the case, especially so since the action filed is not yet barred by laches or
respondents’ motion in its Resolution dated November 26, 2007 due to lack of legal estoppel.16
basis.14
Truly, one of the appropriate legal remedies that should have been availed of
by the Franciscos is an action for reconveyance. Contrary to petitioner’s The Court agrees with the CA’s disquisition that an action for reconveyance
declaration, proof of actual fraud is not required as it may be filed even when can indeed be barred by prescription. In a long line of cases decided by this Court,
no fraud intervened such as when there is mistake in including the land for we ruled that an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust
registration. In the action for reconveyance, the theory that registration
29
Capio v. Capio, 94 Phil. 113, 116 (1953).
27
Gomez v. Court of Appeals, supra note 19, as cited in Spouses Laburada v.
30
Land Registration Authority, 350 Phil. 779, 788 (1998) and Ramos v. Rodriguez, 314 CA rollo, pp. 51-53; Rollo, pp. 205-206.
31
Phil. 326, 331 (1995). Pasiño v. Monterroyo, G.R. No. 159494, July 31, 2008, 560 SCRA 739, 751
28
Cayanan v. De Los Santos, 129 Phil. 612, 615 (1967); Santos v. Ichon, 95 Phil. Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) v. Fernandez, 411 Phil. 107, 119 (2001
32
677, 681 (1954); G.R. No. 161360, October 19, 2011, 659 SCRA 545.
13
must perforce prescribe in ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse
the property. claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be
claimed only by one who is in possession. No better situation can be
However, there is an exception to this rule. In the case of Heirs of Pomposa conceived at the moment for Us to apply this rule on equity than that
Saludares v. Court of Appeals, the Court reiterating the ruling in Millena v. Court of herein petitioners whose mother, Felipa Faja, was in possession of
of Appeals, held that there is but one instance when prescription cannot be the litigated property for no less than 30 years and was suddenly
invoked in an action for reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in confronted with a claim that the land she had been occupying and
possession of the land to be reconveyed. In Heirs of Pomposa Saludares, this cultivating all these years, was titled in the name of a third person.
Court explained that the Court in a series of cases, has permitted the filing of an We hold that in such a situation the right to quiet title to the property,
action for reconveyance despite the lapse of more than ten (10) years from the to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of title covering it,
issuance of title to the land and declared that said action, when based on fraud, is accrued only from the time the one in possession was made aware of a
imprescriptible as long as the land has not passed to an innocent buyer for value. claim adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period
But in all those cases, the common factual backdrop was that the registered of prescription commences to run against such possessor.33
owners were never in possession of the disputed property. The exception was
based on the In this case, the Franciscos claim to be in open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious
possession and occupation of the subject lots. It appears that they never lost
The Court reiterated such rule in the case of Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of possession of said properties, and as such, they are in a position to file the
Appeals, wherein we ruled that the imprescriptibility of an action for reconveyance complaint with the trial court to protect their alleged rights and clear whatever
based on implied or constructive trust applies only when the plaintiff or the doubts has been cast thereon.
person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property. In effect, the
action for reconveyance is an action to quiet the property title, which does not
prescribe. WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant Petition is DENIED. The
December 22, 2003 Decision and February 7, 2005 Resolution of the Court of
Similarly, in the case of David v. Malay the Court held that there was no doubt Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 62449, which nullified the Decision and Orders of the
about the fact that an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust Regional Trial Court of Binangonan, Rizal, Branch 69, and its predecessor, Court of
ordinarily prescribes in ten (10) years. This rule assumes, however, that there is First Instance of Rizal, Branch 10, in Land Registration Case Case No. 95-0004
an actual need to initiate that action, for when the right of the true and real (formerly Case No. N-9293), and consequently, declared as null and void TCT
owner is recognized, expressly or implicitly such as when he remains undisturbed Nos. M-102009, M-102010, and M-102012, are AFFIRMED.
in his possession, the statute of limitation would yet be irrelevant. An action for
reconveyance, if nonetheless brought, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting
of title, or its equivalent, an action that is imprescriptible. In that case, the Court SO ORDERED.
reiterated the ruling in Faja v. Court of Appeals which we quote: