GR L 33259; (August, 1983) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-33259 August 31, 1983
ROSARIO CELO VDA. DE PAMA, ET AL. vs. GUILLERMO PAMA AND LOURDES PAGAYAN
FACTS
Petitioners, the widow and children of the deceased Godofredo Pama and the illegitimate daughter of the deceased Julieta Pama, filed a complaint for reconveyance on April 28, 1969. They sought to recover shares in a homestead, Lot No. 463, originally applied for by Matea Panes, the mother of Godofredo, Julieta, and respondent Guillermo Pama. The property was patented and titled on August 11, 1954, in the name of the “Heirs of Matea Panes.” On June 16, 1956, respondent Guillermo Pama executed an affidavit of adjudication declaring himself the sole heir of Matea Panes. Consequently, the original certificate of title was cancelled, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-4006 was issued solely in his name on June 18, 1956. Guillermo later sold the property on March 10, 1969.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners’ action for reconveyance of the property based on an implied trust had already prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. An action for reconveyance based on a constructive or implied trust prescribes in ten years from the date the adverse title is asserted by the possessor. In this case, respondent Guillermo Pama asserted adverse title when he caused the registration of the affidavit of adjudication and obtained TCT No. T-4006 exclusively in his name on June 18, 1956. This registration constituted constructive notice to the world, including the petitioners, of his adverse claim, thereby excluding them from the estate. The ten-year prescriptive period commenced on that date. Since the petitioners filed their complaint only on April 28, 1969, or over twelve years later, their right of action was already barred by prescription. The Court resolved to dismiss the petition. Justice Aquino, in a separate concurring opinion, added that the property rightfully belonged to Guillermo as his homestead, and the petitioners had no rightful share in its proceeds.