GR 150175; (March, 2006) (Digest)
G.R. No. 150175 ; March 10, 2006
ERLINDA PILAPIL, HEIRS OF DONATA ORTIZ BRIONES, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF MAXIMINO R. BRIONES, Respondents.
FACTS
Maximino Briones died intestate in 1952, survived by his wife Donata Ortiz-Briones and collateral heirs (siblings and their descendants). Donata was appointed administratrix of his estate. In the ensuing proceedings, the Court of First Instance issued an Order dated October 2, 1952, which Donata used to secure the transfer of several parcels of land—some acquired by Maximino before the marriage and some during the marriage—solely to her name. She obtained new titles in 1960.
Upon Donata’s death in 1977, her heirs, including petitioner Erlinda Pilapil, began administering her estate. In 1987, the heirs of Maximino (respondents) filed a complaint for partition, annulment, and recovery of possession against Donata’s heirs. They alleged that Donata, as administratrix, committed fraud and breach of trust by registering Maximino’s estate properties in her name alone, to the exclusion of his rightful collateral heirs.
ISSUE
Whether the action filed by the heirs of Maximino to recover his estate properties from the heirs of Donata had already prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings that the action had not prescribed. The Court held that the applicable prescriptive period is ten years for an action based on an implied trust, pursuant to Article 1144 of the Civil Code. The prescriptive period commences from the date the trustee repudiates the trust, and such repudiation must be made known to the cestui que trust (beneficiary).
In this case, the implied trust arose from Donata’s fiduciary duty as administratrix to hold and administer the estate for the benefit of all lawful heirs, including Maximino’s collateral relatives. Her act of securing titles in her own name in 1960 constituted a clear repudiation of that trust. However, the ten-year prescriptive period did not begin to run against the respondents at that moment because they had no actual knowledge of the repudiation. The Court found that the respondents, as collateral heirs living elsewhere, only discovered the fraudulent registration in 1985 when they attempted to initiate intestate proceedings for Maximino. Therefore, their filing of the complaint in 1987 was well within the ten-year period from their discovery. The defense of prescription raised by Donata’s heirs thus failed.