GR 118836; (March, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 118836 . March 21, 1997.
FEDERICO DORDAS, et al., petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, FRANCISCO BORRES AND DIOSDADO BORRES, respondents.
FACTS
The subject of this action for reconveyance is a parcel of land originally owned by Rafael Dizon. Dizon sold it to Francisco Contreras in 1927. Contreras, in turn, sold it to respondents Francisco and Diosdado Borres in 1957. Since then, respondents have been in actual possession and have paid realty taxes. In 1961, petitioner Federico Dordas and the heirs of Dizon secured a judicial reconstitution of the original certificate of title, which was allegedly lost. The reconstituted title was issued in the name of Dizon’s heirs. Respondents filed for reconveyance in 1962. The trial court dismissed the action, ruling it was barred by prescription, counting the prescriptive period from 1931 when Dizon’s right to repurchase the property expired.
ISSUE
Whether the action for reconveyance had prescribed and whether the judicially reconstituted title is valid.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirming the Court of Appeals. The action for reconveyance had not prescribed. The trial court erroneously computed prescription from 1931, the date relevant to the original vendor Dizon. Respondents’ cause of action, as subsequent buyers from Contreras, accrued only upon the issuance of the reconstituted title in 1961, which allegedly impaired their ownership. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. The suit filed in 1962 was thus timely.
More critically, the reconstituted title was declared null and void. The reconstitution proceedings were fatally defective. Petitioner failed to submit any of the specific documents required under Republic Act No. 26 to warrant judicial reconstitution. Furthermore, petitioner violated the mandatory notice requirement of R.A. No. 26 by failing to serve personal notice on the actual occupants and possessors, the respondents. Non-compliance with these strict jurisdictional requirements renders the entire reconstitution proceeding void. Consequently, the reconstituted title confers no valid rights. Respondents, as proven actual possessors and buyers in good faith, have a better right to the property.