G.R. No. 204992, September 08, 2020
Aurora Tensuan, Heirs of Dionisia Tensuan, Heirs of Jose Tensuan, Anita Tensuan, Heirs of Leyda Tensuan, Heirs of Francisco Tensuan, and Ricardo Tensuan, Represented by Amparo S. Tensuan, as Attorney-in-Fact, Petitioners, vs. Heirs of Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners are the heirs of Fernando Tensuan, the registered owner of a parcel of land in Muntinlupa City covered by TCT No. 16532. Respondent Ma. Isabel M. Vasquez owned the adjacent Aguila Village subdivision, with the Magdaong River as the boundary. In the 1990s, petitioners discovered that respondent had commissioned rip-rapping on the northern side of her property, which altered the flow of the Magdaong River and caused it to course through the southern portion of petitioners’ land. A Joint Verification Survey conducted in 1995 revealed that the rip-rapping, done pursuant to Special Work Order (SWO) 13-000271, not only followed the river’s contour but also included a portion of the river itself. This resulted in an augmentation of respondent’s property by 5,237.53 square meters, for which she was issued TCT No. 144017 on November 25, 1986. The survey found that out of this area, 1,680.92 square meters were actually part of petitioners’ property, and 3,556.62 square meters were part of the Magdaong River. Respondent subsequently subdivided the area, producing seven derivative titles. Petitioners filed a complaint for accion reivindicatoria and annulment of title on October 7, 1997. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially ruled in favor of petitioners, declaring the SWO and TCT void and ordering restoration of the property. However, upon respondent’s motion for reconsideration, the RTC reversed itself and dismissed the case on the ground of prescription, finding that the cause of action accrued in 1986 when TCT No. 144017 was issued, and the 1997 complaint was filed beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether petitioners’ action for reconveyance and annulment of title had already prescribed.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court granted the petition and reversed the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the RTC. The Court held that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which serves as the constructive notice of the adverse claim. Here, TCT No. 144017 was issued on November 25, 1986. The ten-year prescriptive period commenced from that date. Petitioners filed their complaint on October 7, 1997, which was within the ten-year period. The Court rejected the argument that the period should be counted from 1984 (the date of the survey) or 1986 (the date of the SWO), as the title itself is the operative act that constitutes constructive notice. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the action had not prescribed because the land in question is registered under the Torrens system, and the defense of prescription cannot be used to defeat the imprescriptibility of a decree of title based on actual fraud. The Court also found that the inclusion of a portion of the Magdaong River (a property of public dominion) in the title rendered it void ab initio, and a void title does not confer ownership and is subject to attack at any time. The case was remanded to the RTC for further proceedings to determine the correct areas encroached upon and for the appropriate reconveyance.