Case No.

44
G.R. Nos. 185857-58, June 29, 2016
Gabutan VS. Nacalaban

FACTS:
Godofredo Nacalaban (Godofredo) purchased a parcel of prime land. Pursuant to
the sale, a transfer certificate of Title (TCT No. T-2259) covering the property was
issued in the name of Godofredo where he built a house on it.
Godofredo died and was survived by his wife, Baldomera, and their children
(Nacalaban, et al). Thereafter, Baldomera issued a Certification in favor of her mother,
Melecia, allowing the latter to build and occupy a house on the portion of the property
where such was declared for taxation purposes. The tax declaration presented in
evidence showed that Melecia owned the building on the land owned by Godofredo.
Baldomera later died. Her children then executed an Extrajudicial Settlement of
Estate of Deceased Person with Sale where they adjudicated unto themselves the
property and sold it to the College. TCT No. T-2259 was cancelled and a new transfer
certificate of Title covering the property was issued in the name of the College.
Subsequently, Melecia died and was survived by her children (Gabutan, et al).
Thereafter, Gabutan, et al. filed a Complaint for Reconveyance of Real Property,
Declaration of Nullity of Contracts, Partition and Damages with Writ of Preliminary
Attachment and Injunction against Nacalaban, et al. and the College. They alleged that:
(1) Melecia bought the property using her own money but Godofredo had the Deed of
Absolute Sale executed in his name instead of his mother-in-law; (2) Godofredo and
Baldomera were only trustees of the property in favor of the real owner and beneficiary,
Melecia; (3) they only knew about the Extrajudicial Settlement with Sale upon
verification with the Registry of Deeds; and (4) the College I was a buyer in bad faith,
being aware they were co-owners of the property.

ISSUE:
Whether the action for reconveyance was proper; and

HELD:
Having established the creation of an implied resulting trust, the action for
reconveyance filed by Gabutan, et al., the heirs of Melecia in whose benefit the trust
was created, is proper. An action for reconveyance is a legal and equitable remedy
granted to the rightful landowner, whose land was wrongfully or erroneously registered
in the name of another, to compel the registered owner to transfer or reconvey the land
to him.
The fact that the property was already titled in Ciodofredo's name, and later
transferred to the College, is not a hindrance to an action for reconveyance based on an
implied trust.
Case No. 45
G.R. No. 195072, August 01, 2016
Danan VS. Spouses Serrano

FACTS:
Spouses Gregorio Serrano and Adelaida Reyes (Spouses Serrano) are the
registered owners of a parcel of land. In 1940 and 1950, when the property was still co-
owned by Gregorio and his siblings, Gregorio's sisters, Marciana and Felicidad, gave
petitioner Danan and a certain Artemio Vitug permission to possess 400 square meters
each of the total estate and to build their homes thereon in exchange for one cavan of
palay every year. Thereafter, in separate documents denominated as "Agreement in
Receipt Form" dated June 27, 1976, Gregorio sold to Bonifacio and Artemio their
respective portions of the property.
I While Bonifacio and Artemio paid the P2,000.00 upon signing of the
Agreement, both unable to pay the balance of the purchase price when they fell due.
However, they still remained in possession of their respective lots.
In a Complaint, the Spouses Serrano, through their son and attorney-in-fact,
Arnel Francisco Serrano, instituted ejectment proceedings against Bonifacio and
Artemio, alleging: (1) that they are the owners of the subject properties, (2) that
Bonifacio and Artemio were merely caretakers thereof; and (3) that demand was made
for the latter to vacate, but to no avail. The complaint, however, was dismissed on the
ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Meanwhile, on 1998, in a Complaint for specific performance, filed by Bonifacio
and Artemio, they alleged that: (1) they purchased their respective portions of land via
the Agreement in Receipt Form and since then, stopped paying the yearly rental of one
cavan of palay; (2) failure to pay the remaining balance of the purchase price was due
to the continuous absence of the Spouses Serrano; (3)Gregorio intentionally deceived
them into signing the documents intended to facilitate the processing and issuance of
their titles over their respective portions of land but which turned out to be a
declaration that they were merely caretakers of the same. Thus, Bonifacio and Artemio
prayed that judgment be rendered declaring the documents as null and void.

ISSUE:
Can Bonifacio demand specific performance against spouse’s serrano.

HELD:
Notwithstanding the failure by the spouses to comply with the cancellation
requirements under RA No. 6552, however, Bonifacio's action for specific performance
must nonetheless fail on the ground of prescription.

In Manuel Uy & Sons, Inc. v. Valbueco, Incorporated, the Court affirmed the
action's dismissal in the following wise: x x x The Complaint shows that the Conditional
Deeds of Sale were executed on November 29, 1973, and payments were due on both
Conditional Deeds of Sale on November 15, 1974. Article 1144 of the Civil Code
provides that actions based upon a written contract must be brought within ten years
from the time the right of action accrues. Non-fulfillment of the obligation to pay on the
last due date, that is, on November 15,1974, would give rise to an action by the
vendor, which date of reckoning may also apply to any action by the vendee to
determine his right under R.A. No. 6552. The vendee, respondent herein, filed this case
on March46, 2001, which is clearly beyond the 10-year prescriptive period; hence, the
action has prescribed.