GR 46345; (January, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. 46345 ; January 30, 1990
Restituto Ceniza and Jesus Ceniza, petitioners, vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals, Magno Dabon, Vicenta Dabon, Teresita Dabon, Eugenia Dabon, and Tomas Dabon, respondents.
FACTS
The petitioners, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza, filed an action for reconveyance against the private respondents, the Dabon siblings, concerning portions of Lot No. 627 in Mandaue, Cebu. The lot was originally purchased jointly from the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu by Jose Ceniza (the petitioners’ predecessor) and Vicente Dabon (the respondents’ father). For convenience, the title was registered solely in Vicente Dabon’s name in 1939. Both families thereafter possessed specific portions, paid taxes, and made installment payments to the vendor. In 1961, a subdivision survey delineated specific lots for the petitioners. The controversy arose when the respondents, as heirs of Vicente Dabon, refused to convey the petitioners’ designated lots, claiming exclusive ownership and asserting that the petitioners’ action had prescribed.
ISSUE
The core legal issue is whether the petitioners’ action for reconveyance, filed in 1967, was barred by prescription, considering the land was registered in Vicente Dabon’s name in 1939.
RULING
The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the trial court’s decision, ruling the action was not barred by prescription. The legal logic hinges on the existence of an implied trust and co-ownership. Under Article 1452 of the Civil Code, when two persons agree to purchase property and title is placed in one name for the benefit of both, a trust is created by law. Here, the registration in Dabon’s name created an implied trust in favor of Jose Ceniza and his heirs. Crucially, prescription does not run against a co-owner as long as the co-ownership is recognized. For acquisitive prescription to commence, the trustee must perform clear acts of repudiation made known to the co-owners. The Court found no such repudiation occurred until at least the respondents’ refusal to honor the 1961 subdivision, which was an act adverse to the petitioners. The action filed in 1967 was well within the prescriptive period from that repudiation. The continuous possession and tax payments by the petitioners further negated any claim of ouster. Therefore, the trust relationship persisted, making the action for reconveyance imprescriptible until a clear repudiation was communicated.