G.R. No. 211309 & G.R. No. 211957, October 02, 2024
MARCIAL O. DAGOT, JR., NELLY D. ALANGADI, TERESITA D. DALOJO AND THE HEIRS OF EVANGELINE D. EBUENGA, PETITIONERS, VS. SPOUSES GO CHENG KEY AND CHUA SIONG KUAN, TERESITA DIMALANTA AND CEFERINO DIMALANTA, REYNALDO GO AND JUDY GO, LOLITA ZABALA AND ROBERTO ZABALA, JOY GARCIA AND EDUARDO GARCIA, BERNARDO GO, FERDINAND GO, AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS – PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

Petitioners are the heirs of the late spouses Marcial Dagot, Sr. and Maxima Oblan. Dagot, Sr. was the registered owner of a 17.0229-hectare parcel of land under OCT No. G-558. He died in 1949. On November 19, 1960, petitioners and Oblan executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale of 11 hectares of the property in favor of Pelagia P. Ebro. When this document was presented for registration, OCT No. G-558 could not be found, so it was administratively reconstituted. The reconstituted copy bore only the annotation of the 1960 sale, as prior annotations were not carried over. The original OCT, when later recovered, showed three prior sales by Oblan covering four hectares of the land to other parties (annotated in 1955 and 1959). In 1961, Ebro commissioned a subdivision survey, and TCT No. T-1220 was issued in her name covering 130,227 square meters (over 13 hectares), exceeding the 11 hectares she bought. Ebro later sold the property to spouses Go Cheng Key and Chua Siong Kuan (TCT No. T-1533), who subsequently subdivided and donated the lots to the other respondents. Petitioners filed a complaint in 1999 seeking annulment of the titles derived from Ebro’s TCT, arguing that Ebro’s title was void insofar as it exceeded the 11 hectares sold to her. The RTC initially ruled in favor of petitioners but later reversed itself upon reconsideration, dismissing the complaint on the ground that the action for reconveyance based on implied trust had prescribed. The CA affirmed the dismissal.

ISSUE

Whether the action for reconveyance filed by petitioners had already prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action had prescribed. The Court affirmed the CA’s decision. The inclusion of the excess area in Ebro’s title, arising from a mistake in the subdivision survey and the reconstitution process, gave rise to an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code. An action for reconveyance based on such an implied trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title, which operates as a constructive notice to the whole world. Ebro’s title (TCT No. T-1220) was issued on August 4, 1961. Petitioners’ cause of action accrued on that date. However, they filed their complaint only on September 22, 1999, or 38 years later, well beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court rejected petitioners’ argument that the action was imprescriptible because the title was void. The principle of imprescriptibility applies only when the plaintiff is in possession of the property or when the title is void on its face (e.g., a forgery). Here, petitioners were not in possession, and the alleged voidness of Ebro’s title was not apparent from the face of the title but required extrinsic evidence to prove the excess area. Therefore, the prescriptive period applied and had lapsed.