G.R. No. 157784; December 16, 2008
RICHARD B. LOPEZ, in his capacity as Trustee of the Trust Estate of the Late JULIANA LOPEZ-MANZANO, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, CORAZON LOPEZ, FERNANDO LOPEZ, ROBERTO LOPEZ, represented by LUZVIMINDA LOPEZ, MARIA ROLINDA MANZANO, MARIA ROSARIO MANZANO SANTOS, JOSE MANZANO, JR., NARCISO MANZANO (all represented by Attorney-in-fact, MODESTO RUBIO), MARIA CRISTINA MANZANO RUBIO, IRENE MONZON and ELENA MANZANO, respondents.

FACTS

Juliana Lopez Manzano, owner of several paraphernal properties, executed a notarial will on March 23, 1968, creating a trust fund (Fideicomiso de Juliana Lopez Manzano) for her paraphernal properties, to be administered by her husband, Jose Lopez Manzano. She died on August 12, 1968. Jose initiated probate proceedings. The probate court admitted the will and issued letters testamentary to Jose. Jose submitted an inventory and a project of partition. In the project, he stated that as Juliana’s compulsory heir, he was entitled to one-half of her paraphernal properties as his legitime, with the other half to constitute the Fideicomiso. He listed thirteen properties, including the six disputed parcels (totaling over 1,500 hectares in Batangas), as registered in both his and Juliana’s names and proposed they be adjudicated to him as heir, subject to settling obligations charged on them. The probate court approved the project of partition on August 25, 1969. On September 15, 1969, it ordered the issuance of new certificates of title for the disputed properties in Jose’s name. The Fideicomiso was constituted but excluded the disputed lands. Jose died on July 22, 1980, leaving a holographic will bequeathing the disputed properties to the respondents. His will was probated, and the titles were transferred to the respondents. Petitioner Richard B. Lopez, appointed trustee of Juliana’s estate on August 30, 1984, filed an action for reconveyance on December 11, 1984, alleging Jose held the disputed properties in trust for Juliana’s estate. The Regional Trial Court rendered a summary judgment dismissing the action on the ground of prescription. The Court of Appeals affirmed this decision.

ISSUE

Whether petitioner’s action for reconveyance has prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action for reconveyance has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts. The Court ruled that no express trust was created over the disputed properties by Juliana’s will because the will did not specifically identify these properties as part of the trust estate. The Fideicomiso was constituted only over the properties explicitly listed in the project of partition and approved by the probate court, which excluded the disputed lots. The registration of the disputed properties in Jose’s name on September 15, 1969, pursuant to the probate court’s order, was an adverse act repudiating any implied trust. An implied trust, if any, was thereby repudiated. The prescriptive period for an action to recover property based on an implied trust is ten years from the date of repudiation. Petitioner filed the action for reconveyance on December 11, 1984, more than ten years after September 15, 1969. Therefore, the action had prescribed.