GR 140457; (January, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. 140457 ; January 19, 2005
HEIRS OF MAXIMO SANJORJO, petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF MANUEL Y. QUIJANO and VICENTE Z. GULBE, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, heirs of Maximo Sanjorjo, filed a complaint for cancellation of titles and reconveyance of possession over four lots in Medellin, Cebu. They alleged ownership by inheritance, claiming their predecessor, Guillermo Sanjorjo, acquired the lots through an exchange. The lots were allegedly leased to Manuel Quijano in 1983, but possession was never returned. Subsequently, Free Patents and corresponding Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issued to respondents Alan Quijano and Gwendolyn Enriquez for Lots 374 and 379 in 1988 and 1989, respectively. The petitioners had initially filed an administrative protest with the DENR for cancellation of these patents but withdrew it. The Regional Executive Director dismissed the protest in 1992, ruling the titles could no longer be disturbed as the complaint was filed more than one year from issuance. The petitioners then filed the present civil action in 1993.
ISSUE
Whether the petitioners’ action for reconveyance based on fraud had already prescribed.
RULING
No, the action had not prescribed. The Supreme Court ruled that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which operates as a constructive notice to the whole world. The reckoning point for the prescriptive period is the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the certificate of title. In this case, OCTs for Lots 374 and 379 were issued on September 6, 1988, and February 11, 1989, respectively. The petitioners filed their complaint on September 13, 1993, which was well within the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court clarified that the one-year period under Section 32 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 for reopening a decree of registration applies specifically to direct attacks against a judgment granting a title, not to an action for reconveyance based on implied trust, which is an indirect attack. The Court of Appeals erred in applying the one-year period. Consequently, the Supreme Court partially granted the petition and directed the reinstatement of the complaint concerning Lots 374 and 379.