G.R. No. L-37442 November 9, 1981
Fabia Masaganda, et al., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. Juan Argamosa and Leonor Sevilla, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

The plaintiffs-appellants, heirs of Juan Masaganda and Sotera Esclanda, filed an action for reconveyance against Juan Argamosa. They alleged that a one-half portion of Lot No. 2162 in Lopez, Quezon, was inherited from their parents, who had possessed it since time immemorial, with the other half belonging to the heirs of Pedro Sevilla. They claimed that Argamosa secured Original Certificate of Title No. 33171 for the entire lot in 1931 through fraud and deceit, thereby wrongfully registering it in his name. The plaintiffs asserted they remained in possession and only discovered the wrongful registration later, seeking to recover their alleged property.
The defendants-appellees denied the allegations, asserting that Juan Argamosa was the absolute and registered owner, having inherited the lot from his grandfather, Rufino Argamosa, who had possessed it openly and adversely for over thirty-eight years. Argamosa maintained actual, public, and exclusive possession, declaring the property for taxation and paying taxes. He argued that the plaintiffs’ claim was barred by prescription and laches, emphasizing that the title had been issued in 1931, while the lawsuit was only filed in December 1962, over thirty-one years later.

ISSUE

Whether the action for reconveyance filed by the plaintiffs-appellants is barred by prescription.

RULING

Yes, the action for reconveyance has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court’s decision, declaring Juan Argamosa the lawful owner entitled to possession. The Court emphasized that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. Here, Original Certificate of Title No. 33171 was issued to Argamosa on April 13, 1931. The plaintiffs filed their complaint only on December 14, 1962, which is thirty-one years and eight months later. This long lapse of time, without a reasonable excuse for the delay, not only casts doubt on the validity of their ownership claim but is also disfavored by law.
The Court rejected the appellants’ argument that Argamosa held the land in trust for their benefit. Even assuming an implied trust existed, the unequivocal jurisprudential rule is that such an action prescribes within ten years. The title of Argamosa had long become settled and indefeasible. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ right to seek reconveyance was extinguished by prescription. The judgment in favor of Juan Argamosa was affirmed without costs.