GR 115284; (November, 1997) (Digest)
G.R. No. 115284 November 13, 1997
PABLO STA. ANA, JR., petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ERNESTO P. CAYETANO, LEONOR C. CAYETANO, and ALEJANDRO B. MANAHAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioner Pablo Sta. Ana, Jr. and his deceased mother filed an action for reconveyance against the spouses Ernesto and Leonor Cayetano and Alejandro B. Manahan concerning a 900-square-meter parcel of land. They alleged that the spouses Cayetano fraudulently included this land in their registration proceedings (Plan PSU-183419) without petitioner’s knowledge, despite petitioner and his mother’s continuous possession since 1951 when they inherited it. The Cayetanos obtained Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 989 over the land on March 26, 1962, and later sold it to respondent Manahan, who was issued Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 17218 on August 17, 1973. The complaint, filed on August 27, 1973, sought cancellation of TCT No. 17218, segregation of the land, and reconveyance with damages. Private respondents moved to dismiss on the ground of prescription, arguing that the action, based on implied or constructive trust, prescribed in ten years from the 1962 registration. The trial court deferred resolution, allowed trial, and later dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal.
ISSUE
Whether the action for reconveyance filed by petitioner has prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action for reconveyance has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts, holding that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property. The reckoning date is March 26, 1962, when OCT No. 989 was issued to the spouses Cayetano. Since the complaint was filed only on August 27, 1973, or eleven years later, the action was barred by prescription. The Court rejected petitioner’s argument that the action was imprescriptible as one to quiet title, noting that the complaint was based on a theory of implied trust, and a party is bound by the theory and cause of action pleaded. The Court also rejected the claim that the prescriptive period should run from petitioner’s actual knowledge of the adverse claim, reiterating that the period runs from the title’s issuance. The petition was denied.