S P E C P R O . R U L E 7 4 - 7 5 | 26 G.R. No. L-46410 October 30, 1981 ERNESTO BALBIN vs. PERO !. "EALLA #A!TS$
Private respondents on June 19, 1962, purchased from the heirs of Juan Ladao, a parcel of agricultural land situtated at Sitios of Bacong, Tambunaan and !bunan, Barrio Balansa" #amburao, $ccidental #indoro% The" filed an application for registration of title of the said parc parcel el of land land on June June 1&, 1&, 196' 196' and and util utili( i(ed ed as evidence of o)nership, the *eed of Sale e+ecuted in thei theirr favo favorr b" the the heir heirs s of late late Juan Juan Lada Ladao, o, the the info inform rmac acio ion n Pos Poses esor oria ia issu issued ed in the the name name of Juan Juan Lada Ladao o toge togeth ther er )ith )ith the the ta+ ta+ decl declar arat ation ion and and ta+ ta+ receipts for said land covering the period of #a" 26, 19& to Januar" 2-, 1962% The private respondents, after the sale, declared it for ta+ation purposes and have have contin continuou uousl" sl" been been pa"ing pa"ing the corres correspon ponding ding ta+es up to the present% The application for registration of title aforesaid )as opposed b" petitioners on the ground that the" )ere previo previousl usl" " issued issued $rigina $riginall .ertif .ertifica icates tes of title title thru thru either /omestead or 0ree Patent grants% The court, on #a" #a" -, 1969 1969 gave gave due due cour course se to the the appl applic ican ants ts petition petition for registration registration of title and the opposition opposition of the the petit petition ioner ers s )ere )ere not reso resolv lved ed in vie) vie) of the the reservation reservation made b" the applicants applicants to file appropriate appropriate actions for the cancellation of petitioners homestead or patent titles% $n ugust ', 19-', private respondents herein filed an action action for reconv reconve"a e"ance nce and annulm annulment ent of titles titles befo before re the the .0! .0! of $cci $ccide dent ntal al #ind #indor oro o )hic )hich h subse3uentl" declared the 0ree Patents null and void and cancelled the $riginal .ertification of Title% /ence, this Petition before the S.% ISS%E$ &ON T'E A!TION A!TION #OR RE!ON(E)AN!E RE!ON(E)AN!E 'AS ALREA) PRES!RIBE 'EL$ A##IR"ATI(E
n action for reconve"ance of real propert" resulting from fraud ma" be barred b" the statute of limitations, )hich re3uires that the action shall be filed )ithin four 4&5 4&5 "ear "ears s from from the the disco discove ver" r" of the the frau fraud% d% Such Such discov discover" er" is deemed deemed to have have taen taen place place )hen )hen the petitioners petitioners herein )ere issued original original certificate certificate of title through either homestead or free patent grants, for for the the regi regist stra rati tion on of said said pate patent nts s const onstit itut ute e constructive notice to the )hole )orld% !n the case at bar, the latest patent )as issued on $ctob $ctober er 1&, 1&, 199 199%% !f an" an" acti action on for reco reconv nve" e"an ance ce should be commenced, the same should be filed on or before before $ctobe $ctoberr 1&, 196'% 196'% But private private respon responden dents7 ts7 complaint complaint for reconve"anc reconve"ance e and annulment of titles )ith damages )as filed onl" on ugust ', 19-', or
more than 1& "ears had alread" elapsed from the date of the the issua ssuanc nce e of the the res respect pectiv ive e titl titles es of the the defendants% .onse3uentl", the action for reconve"ance of land titled in the names of defendants 4petitioners herein5 had alread" prescribed% possessor" information has to be confirmed in a land registration proceeding, as re3uired in Section 19 ct 8o% &96% lthough converted into a title of absolute o)nership, an informacion posesoria1 ma" still be lost b" prescription% $n the other hand, the Torrens Titles issued to the petitioners on the basis of the homestead patents and free patents obta btaine ined b" them had become indefeasible% heref herefore ore,, the :udgme :udgment nt appeal appealed ed from from should should be reversed and the complaint of the #edallas should be, as it is hereb" dismissed%
G.R. No. L-368*0 Se+teber 3, 198 ROSARIO PERE vs% PILAR ONG !'%A #A!TS$
$n pri prill 1', 1', 192; 192;,, 0ran 0ranci cisc sco o rci rcill llas as and and his his )ife )ife amboa >amboanga nga .it", .it", regist registere ered d in the names of the spouses rcallas, to secure their loan of ?S @1',%% 0or violation of the aforestated stipulation, an action for foreclosure of mortgage )as instituted sometime in 19' b" #rs% orcester against the spouses rcillas in the .ourt of 0irst !nstance of >amboanga% *uring the pendenc" of the action, or on #a" &, 19', 0rancisco rci rcilla llas s died died%% s no noti notice ce of deat death h of defe defend ndan antt 0ranci 0rancisc sco o rcill rcillas as )as filed )ith the court, court, the trial Judge proceeded proceeded )ith the case )ithout substitution substitution of the deceased b" his legal representative or heirs% $n ugust 2', 19', a :udgment )as rendered in favor of the mortgagee% ?pon registration of the sheriffs certificate of sale and the order of confirmation on 8ovember 2&, 19', the cert certifi ifica cate tes s of titl title e of the the spou spouse ses s rci rcilla llas s )ere )ere cancelled and, in lieu thereof, transfer certificates of title )ere issued in the name of #rs% orcester% T)o da"s da"s later later,, #rs% #rs% orc orces este terr sold sold the the said said land lands s to Anri3ue $ng .hua, )ho obtained ne) certificates of title in his name, and possessed the said properties as o)ner%
1
Read full text for discussion about the issue in possessory informaon.
S P E C P R O . R U L E 7 4 - 7 5 | 26 Thirt"=eight "ears thereafter, or on $ctober 1&, 196;, amboanga against the $ng .huas for annulment of their certificates of title and for reconve"ance, and accounting of the fruits of, the t)ent"=three parcels of land in 3uestion alleging that that the /onorable :udge at that time, orcester and Anri3ue $ng .hua conspired together and )ere guilt" of fraud in transferring and ac3uiring the properties% The court a 3uo, sustained the appellees7 defense of prescription and laches and ultimatel" dismissed the complaint% /ence, this appeal% ISS%E$ &ON T'E A!TION PRES!RIPTION AN LA!'ES
IS
BARRE
B)
'EL$ A##IR"ATI(E
The appellants7 cause of action to cancel the certificates of title in 3uestion accrued from 19', the "ear of the recording of the sheriff7s deed and the issuance of the certificates of title% '; "ears had thus elapsed before the appellants instituted the present action% The continuous and public assertion of title b" the appellees and their predecessor=in=interest during this period of time )as more than sufficient to e+tinguish the appellants7 action% The period of e+tinctive prescription under .hapter !!! of the .ode of .ivil Procedure, the la) in force at the time, )as onl" ten "ears% ppellants7 contend, ho)ever, that the :udgment rendered b" the court in the foreclosure proceedings in 19' )as erroneous and hence created an implied trust such that reconve"ance cannot prescribe because prescription does not run against their predecessor7s title registered under .T &96, the court ruled that an action to enforce an implied trust ma" be barred not onl" b" prescription for 1 "ears but also b" laches% !n Go Chi Gun, et al. vs. Co Cho et al %, this .ourt spelled out the four elements of the e3uitable defense of laches2 )hich in the case at bar are all present% s pointed out, #rs% orcester, after having ac3uired the propert" at public auction and having obtained the certificates of title in her name, sold on 8ovember 26, 19' the properties in 3uestion to Anri3ue $ng .hua% ppellants allo)ed almost four decades to lapse before taing an" remedial action% Because of their passivit" 2
(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant's rights, the complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendants' conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and () in!ury or pre!udice to the defendant in the events relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred"
and inaction during this entire period, appellees )ere made to feel secure in their belief that the" had ac3uired the lands rightfull"% The" )ere thus induced to spend time, effort and mone" in cultivating the land, pa"ing ta+es and introducing improvements thereon% ?ndoubtedl", the" )ould be pre:udiced if the instant action for reconve"ance is not barred%
