G.R. No. 121468 January 27, 1998
ARSENIO DELOS REYES, FELICIDAD DELOS REYES, BENJAMIN DELOS REYES, SALVADOR DELOS REYES, SOLEDAD DELOS REYES and PEDRO PARINAO, TRINIDAD DELOS REYES and PEDRO GENERAL, CARLOS DELOS REYES, JR., ROBERTO DELOS REYES, RODOLFO DELOS REYES, RICARDO DELOS REYES, ZENAIDA DELOS REYES, VERONICA DELOS REYES, MERCEDES DELOS REYES, FELIPE CANTILLON, GREGORIA CANTILLON, LUCENA CANTILLON, VIRGILIO CANTILLON and MERCEDES CANTILLON, petitioners,

vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, ZENAIDA CAIÑA and RODOLFO CAIÑA, respondents.

FACTS

The subject of the controversy is a 13,405-square-meter parcel of land originally owned by spouses Genaro and Evarista delos Reyes. On July 7, 1942, Evarista delos Reyes sold 10,000 square meters of the property to spouses Catalina Mercado and Eulalio Pena. On June 4, 1943, the Pena spouses secured Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 26184 covering the entire 13,405 square meters, including the 3,405 square meters not sold to them. The property was subsequently sold to Isaias de Guzman and Emiliana de Onon, then to Elpidio Concepcion, Liwayway Serrano, Norberto Concepcion and Marta de Guzman, and finally to respondents Rodolfo Caiña and Zenaida Caiña on July 9, 1963, through a “Deed of Exchange.” TCT No. 42753 was issued in the name of the Caiña spouses on July 17, 1963. On October 3, 1978, petitioners, all heirs of Evarista delos Reyes, filed an action for reconveyance against respondents, claiming that the 3,405-square-meter portion was invalidly included in the Pena spouses’ title. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint on the ground of laches, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether an action for reconveyance of real property covered by the Torrens system, filed after more than thirty (30) years, can prosper against a holder for value.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The Court held that petitioners’ cause of action accrued on June 4, 1943, when the Pena spouses registered the entire 13,405 square meters in their name, thereby violating Evarista delos Reyes’ ownership over the unsold 3,405-square-meter portion. Applying the 30-year prescriptive period for real actions under Section 44(b) of the Judiciary Act of 1948 and Article 1141 of the Civil Code, the action filed in 1978 was barred, having been initiated thirty-six (36) years after the cause of action arose. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that respondents were innocent purchasers for value who acquired the property in good faith under a clean title, with no annotations or notices of lis pendens. Petitioners’ reliance on Articles 1409, 1410, and 1422 of the Civil Code regarding imprescriptible void contracts was misplaced, as the action for reconveyance had become stale and was barred by laches. The Court noted that for thirty-six (36) years, petitioners and their predecessor never raised any objection as the property passed through successive owners, and the only remedy for the defrauded owner would have been an action for damages against the perpetrators of the fraud within four years from its discovery.