G.R. No. L-25375 October 30, 1970
ANICIA T. REYES, plaintiff-appellant, vs. GREGORIO APOSTOL and ADELAIDA CARPIO APOSTOL, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

On May 19, 1965, Anicia T. Reyes filed a complaint against the spouses Gregorio Apostol and Adelaida Carpio Apostol in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan to recover ownership and possession of a parcel of land in Hagonoy, Bulacan, and/or for its reconveyance with damages. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on June 22, 1965, on the ground that the cause of action was barred by the statute of limitations. The lower court granted the motion and dismissed the complaint on July 12, 1965. The plaintiff appealed.
The complaint alleged that plaintiff purchased the land from Antonio de Pano in 1943. On December 26, 1946, defendants, with knowledge of plaintiff’s prior purchase, bought the same land again from de Pano. Defendants declared the land in their names for tax purposes on April 25, 1947, and unlawfully erected a house on the land in 1947. Plaintiff discovered the second sale when defendants built their house in 1947 and immediately informed defendants they had no right to occupy the land, but defendants refused to vacate. Defendants subsequently registered the land under the Torrens system ( Act No. 496 ) and obtained Original Certificate of Title No. O-39 in their names on November 25, 1947, by virtue of a decision rendered on September 22, 1947. Plaintiff filed the action to recover ownership and possession or for reconveyance on May 19, 1965.

ISSUE

Whether or not, upon the facts pleaded in the complaint, the plaintiff’s cause of action had already prescribed when the action was commenced on May 19, 1965.

RULING

Yes, the cause of action had prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the order of dismissal.
The Court held that from the facts alleged, plaintiff knew of the sale to defendants in 1947. Defendants took possession, declared the land for taxes, built a house, and obtained a Torrens title in their names on November 25, 1947. Plaintiff filed the action only on May 19, 1965, approximately 18 years after the issuance of the title and nearly 20 years after discovering the sale. Whether the action is considered an accion reinvindicatoria (action to recover ownership) or a personal action for reconveyance, it was filed long after the expiration of the applicable prescriptive period. Even if treated as an action to annul the deed of sale or the registration proceedings on the ground of fraud, it was filed beyond the prescriptive period. The Court also found the facts alleged insufficient to justify annulment based on an implied trust.