G.R. No. L-29213 October 21, 1977
MANUEL B. RUIZ, MARCIAL QUIÑONES, FILOMENA QUIÑONES, MACARIO QUICIO and ALEJANDRA BALICO, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, THE HONORABLE JUDGES VICENTE BULLECER and ALFREDO I. GONZALES, JOVENCIO Q. TANCONTIAN, SOCORRO T. AGUILON, SALVACION T. DIAO, IMELDA T. NOEL, JESUS AGUILON and ALFREDO NOEL, JR., respondents.

FACTS

Private respondents, the nephews and nieces of the deceased Meliton Quiñones, filed an action for recovery of a parcel of land against petitioners. They alleged that upon Meliton’s death, they, together with petitioners Marcial and Filomena Quiñones, became co-owners of the property. Petitioners Marcial and Filomena, assisted by their lawyer, petitioner Manuel B. Ruiz, previously recovered the land from a third party in a separate case. Shortly after that favorable decision, Marcial and Filomena sold the entire property to petitioner Macario Quicio for a purportedly inadequate price. Private respondents claimed this sale was simulated, fictitious, and executed under the undue influence of Atty. Ruiz, who was the real purchaser, in breach of the attorney-client relationship. They sought to declare the sale void and to recover their shares.
Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the grounds of prescription and laches, arguing that the action was filed more than ten years after the issuance of the title to Quicio. The respondent judges denied the motion to dismiss. Petitioners then filed a petition for prohibition and mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel the dismissal of the case, which was denied. Hence, this petition for certiorari.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly denied the motion to dismiss based on the grounds of prescription and laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition, upholding the denial of the motion to dismiss. The Court ruled that prescription and laches could not be determined merely from the allegations in the complaint and required a full trial on the merits. The logic is that if the sale is proven to be simulated, fictitious, and procured through fraud in breach of a fiduciary duty, then the title issued is void. A void title does not confer ownership and generates no rights that can ripen into prescription. The applicable prescriptive period for an action to recover property based on an implied trust arising from fraud is ten years. However, this period commences from the date of the registration of the fraudulent deed. The complaint alleged the sale occurred in April 1956, and the action was filed in March 1966, which is within the ten-year period. Furthermore, the principle of tacking possession for prescription requires privity between possessors, which does not apply if the sale is void ab initio. Since the complaint sufficiently alleged facts constituting a cause of action that was not clearly time-barred on its face, the trial court acted correctly in proceeding to trial to receive evidence on the validity of the sale and the alleged fraud.