GR 107797; (August, 1996) (Digest)
G.R. No. 107797 August 26, 1996
PURITA SALVATIERRA, ELENITA SALVATIERRA NUNEZ, ANSELMO SALVATIERRA, JR., EMELITA SALVATIERRA, and ROMEL SALVATIERRA, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SPS. LINO LONGALONG and PACIENCIA MARIANO, respondents.
FACTS
The case involves a dispute over a 149-square meter portion of Lot No. 26, originally part of the estate of Enrique Salvatierra. In 1968, the heirs executed an Extrajudicial Partition with Confirmation of Sale, which allocated only a 405-square meter portion of Lot No. 26 to Anselmo Salvatierra. The remaining portion was allocated to Venancio Salvatierra. In 1970, Venancio sold Lot No. 27 and a 149-square meter portion of Lot No. 26 to respondent spouses Lino Longalong and Paciencia Mariano. However, Anselmo Salvatierra subsequently obtained Original Certificate of Title No. 0-4221 covering the entire 749-square meter Lot No. 26. The Longalongs discovered in 1982 that the 149-square meter portion they bought was outside their fence and titled under Anselmo’s name.
The Longalongs filed an action for reconveyance. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the case, ruling that the action had prescribed, having been filed more than four years from the 1982 discovery of the alleged fraud. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering the petitioners (heirs of Anselmo) to reconvey the disputed portion.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the action for reconveyance filed by the Longalongs had prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and held that the action had not prescribed. The Court clarified that the applicable prescriptive period is ten years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code, not four years under Article 1391. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, arising from a prior owner’s wrongful registration of property in his name, prescribes in ten years from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title. The four-year period under Article 1391 governs actions for annulment of contracts based on vitiated consent, such as fraud, which is not the nature of the Longalongs’ claim.
The ten-year period commenced from the issuance of Anselmo’s title on June 15, 1971. The Longalongs filed their suit in 1984, well within the prescriptive period. On the merits, the Court found that Venancio could only validly sell the portion rightfully allotted to him—the 149-square meter portion—under the 1968 partition. Anselmo’s title over the entire lot, to the extent it included Venancio’s share, was fraudulently obtained. Thus, the Longalongs, as Venancio’s vendees, were entitled to reconveyance of that specific portion.