GR 177624; (July, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. 177624 ; July 13, 2009
MODESTA LUNA, Petitioner, vs. JULIANA P. LUNA, CORNELIO, MILAGROS, RENATO, FLORDELITA, AURORA, ANDRITO and GEORGE all surnamed GARCILLA, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Modesta Luna filed a complaint for recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land against her sister, respondent Juliana Luna, and others. Modesta alleged that their father, Pedro Luna, donated 2,268 square meters of the land to her in 1950. Upon Pedro’s death in 1957, she declared the land for taxation and paid taxes but allowed Juliana to cultivate it. In 1976, Juliana obtained a free patent over 3,431 square meters, which included 1,100 square meters of the donated portion. The land was later subdivided, and titles were issued in 1994 covering the disputed area. The Municipal Trial Court (MTC) ruled in Modesta’s favor, declaring the relevant titles null and void. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) affirmed the MTC’s decision on the merits, despite noting the MTC’s lack of jurisdiction over an action for annulment of title, and assumed jurisdiction pursuant to the Rules.
ISSUE
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed Modesta Luna’s complaint on the ground of prescription.
RULING
Yes, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed the complaint. The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court’s ruling. The core of Modesta’s action was for reconveyance, premised on the claim that the land covered by Juliana’s free patent was actually private land previously donated to her. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. The free patent was issued on May 3, 1976, and the titles derived from it were issued in 1994. Modesta filed her complaint only on March 9, 1999, which was clearly beyond the ten-year prescriptive period from the 1976 issuance. Furthermore, the Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ factual finding that the subject property was public land at the time of the patent application, as Modesta failed to prove that it had been previously withdrawn from the public domain. Her own act of applying for a free patent on an adjoining lot corroborated this status. Consequently, her action, whether viewed as one for reconveyance or for the annulment of title due to fraud, was time-barred. The Court also held that prescription, being a matter of evidence, can be considered by the appellate court even if not raised in the pleadings when the facts are sufficient to resolve it.