GR 161211; (July, 2013) (Digest)
G.R. No. 161211 ; July 17, 2013
SPOUSES CELSO DICO, SR. AND ANGELES DICO, Petitioners, vs. VIZCAYA MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Respondent.
FACTS
Petitioners Spouses Celso and Angeles Dico were the registered owners of Lot No. 486. They also claimed ownership and possession of adjacent lots, including Lot No. 1412, for which they had filed free patent applications in 1964. Respondent Vizcaya Management Corporation (VMC) was the registered owner of Lot No. 29-B and claimed ownership of Lot No. 1412. In 1967, VMC consolidated and subdivided its lots, including these adjacent properties, to develop subdivision projects. In 1981, VMC successfully sued the Dicos for unlawful detainer regarding a structure on the land.
In 1986, the Dicos filed a complaint against VMC for annulment and cancellation of titles, alleging that VMC had “land-grabbed” a portion of their Lot No. 486 totaling 111,966 square meters through the expansion of its subdivision. They sought reconveyance of the property. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of the Dicos, declaring them the absolute owners of the disputed portion and ordering VMC to vacate and pay rentals. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint.
ISSUE
Whether the action for reconveyance filed by the Dicos had already prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title upon which the cause of action is grounded. The Court found that the Dicos’ cause of action accrued from the date VMC’s titles were registered, which was on September 30, 1934 (TCT No. RT-9933) or, at the latest, November 10, 1956 (TCT No. T-41835). The Dicos filed their complaint only in 1986, which was clearly beyond the ten-year prescriptive period.
The Court rejected the Dicos’ argument that prescription could not be invoked because VMC failed to plead it in a motion to dismiss or an answer. Under Section 1, Rule 9 of the Rules of Court, the defense of prescription may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal, if it is apparent from the pleadings or the evidence on record. Since the facts demonstrating the lapse of the prescriptive period were established, the Court properly dismissed the action as time-barred.