GR 143185; (February, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 143185 February 20, 2006
NESTOR MENDIZABEL, ELIZABETH MENDIZABEL, IGNACIO MENDIZABEL, and ADELINA VILLAMOR, Petitioners, vs. FERNANDO APAO and TEOPISTA PARIDELA-APAO, Respondents.
FACTS
Fernando Apao purchased a parcel of land in 1955 and took possession after the vendors failed to repurchase it. He subsequently filed a free patent application for the land, which was surveyed and designated as part of Lot No. 407. However, Ignacio Mendizabel had filed a homestead application over an adjacent area, Lot No. 1080, leading to a conflict. The Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources resolved the dispute by awarding Lot No. 407 to Apao and Lot No. 1080 to Mendizabel. Dissatisfied, Apao appealed to the Office of the President.
Without receiving any decision on his appeal, Apao later discovered that Lot No. 1080 had been partitioned and titled in the names of Ignacio and his son, Nestor Mendizabel, in 1982. Apao pleaded for reconveyance to no avail. Consequently, Apao and his wife filed a complaint for Annulment of Titles and Reconveyance, alleging the titles were secured fraudulently and that the administrative decision was not final as they were never notified.
ISSUE
The core issue is whether the action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust had prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions, ordering the reconveyance of the property to the respondents. The Court held that an action for reconveyance based on a constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which operates as a constructive notice. The titles were issued on December 14, 1982, and the complaint was filed on August 6, 1987, well within the prescriptive period.
The Court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the action had prescribed because the respondents were aware of the titling in 1982. The legal logic is that the prescriptive period for a reconveyance action, which seeks to transfer property wrongfully registered to its rightful owner, commences from the date of the title’s issuance. The respondents’ actual awareness is immaterial, as the law fixes the starting point at the registration date. Since the filing of the complaint occurred less than five years after the titles were issued, the action was timely. The Court found no merit in the petitioners’ claims and upheld the finding that the respondents were the rightful owners entitled to possession.