GR 26107; (November, 1981) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-26107 November 27, 1981
THE HEIRS OF PEDRO MEDINA, represented by MARGARITA MEDINA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, RESTITUTA ZURBITO VDA. DE MEDINA and ANDRES NAVARRO, JR., respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, the heirs of Pedro Medina, filed a complaint in 1957 to recover a 321-hectare parcel of land in Masbate from respondents Restituta Zurbito Vda. de Medina (widow of Pedro’s brother, Sotero) and her grandson, Andres Navarro, Jr. Petitioners alleged that they inherited the land from their father, Pedro. Upon Pedro’s death, the minor petitioners were placed under the guardianship of Sotero and Restituta, who managed the property. Petitioners later discovered the land was declared for taxation in Navarro’s name and that respondents were claiming ownership since 1948, leading to this action for recovery, accounting, and damages.
Respondents asserted ownership derived from a 1924 deed of sale, where Narciso Medina (another brother) sold the land to Sotero and Restituta after an extrajudicial partition of their father Francisco’s estate. They contended that from 1924, they possessed the land openly, continuously, and adversely as owners. Thus, any right of petitioners was extinguished by both extinctive and acquisitive prescription over 33 years of unchallenged possession.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners’ action to recover the land is barred by prescription.
RULING
Yes, the action is barred. The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ dismissal. Petitioners failed to prove an express trust, which requires clear evidence and cannot be established by vague or parol testimony. Assuming a constructive trust existed in petitioners’ favor, their action was lost by prescription. Respondents’ possession from the 1924 sale until the 1957 suit was continuous, open, adverse, and in the concept of owner-buyer for over 33 years. This period far exceeds the 10-year period required for acquisitive prescription under Act No. 190 . Consequently, respondents acquired full title by prescription. The Court emphasized that while prescription does not run against express trusts, it does apply to constructive trusts. Petitioners’ long inaction, despite respondents’ adverse claim, rendered their claim stale and unenforceable.