GR L 7745; (November, 1955) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-7745 November 18, 1955
CANDIDA SEVILLA, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. CONCORDIA DE LOS ANGELES, defendant-appellee.
FACTS
Plaintiffs, the legitimate children of spouses Felix Sevilla and Ciriaca Ramos, instituted an action to recover a parcel of land and to cancel Transfer Certificate of Title No. 577, alleging it was procured by defendant through fraudulent representation. The spouses applied for a homestead during their marriage. After Ciriaca Ramos died, Felix Sevilla continued the application, and a patent was granted on April 27, 1934, with Original Certificate of Title No. 1056 issued in the name of the “heirs of Felix Sevilla.” Before the patent and title were issued, Felix Sevilla married the defendant. After his death, defendant, through fraud and misrepresentation, pretending to be the sole heir, succeeded in having the original title cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 577 issued in her name in 1936, enabling her to possess the land and appropriate its produce. The Court of First Instance initially denied defendant’s motion to dismiss but later granted a second motion, dismissing the case on the ground of prescription, reasoning that the registration of the title constituted constructive notice to the plaintiffs since 1936, and the action filed in 1951 was barred.
ISSUE
Whether the action for reconveyance based on fraud, where the property is held in a constructive trust, has prescribed.
RULING
No, the action has not prescribed. The Supreme Court set aside the order of dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Court ruled that the defense of prescription cannot be set up in an action to recover property held by a person in trust for the benefit of another. The action is one to compel a trustee to convey property registered in her name in trust for the cestui que trust, which does not prescribe. The defendant’s acquisition of title through fraudulent representation created a constructive trust in favor of the defrauded plaintiffs, granting them the right to vindicate the property regardless of the lapse of time. Prescription does not run in favor of a person who holds property in trust for others. The case was dismissed merely on a motion to dismiss, and evidence should be presented on the matter affecting the alleged fiduciary relation or trust.
