G.R. No. L-48268 October 30, 1978
HEIRS OF SEGUNDO UBERAS, et al., and HEIRS OF ALBINO UBERAS, et al., petitioners, vs. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, BRANCH II, presided by THE HON. OSCAR R. VICTORIANO, and ALEJANDRA UBERAS, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners, heirs of Segundo and Albino Uberas, filed a verified complaint in the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental against the respondents, heirs of Pedro Uberas and Alejandra Uberas. The action sought quieting of title, recovery of possession and ownership, partition, and reconveyance with damages over a 922-square-meter parcel of land in Bacolod City originally registered in the name of the spouses Juan Uberas and Dominga Mendoza. The petitioners alleged that upon the death of the spouses in 1929-1930, they were survived by five legitimate children: Segundo, Albino, Francisca, Pedro, and Alejandra. The petitioners are the successors of Segundo and Albino.
The complaint averred that in 1964, Pedro Uberas, his wife Soledad Rapiz, and their children, through fraud and deceit, induced their sister Alejandra to execute a declaration of heirship falsely stating that only Pedro and Alejandra were the heirs. This led to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new one in their names. Subsequently, Alejandra was fraudulently made to sell her share to Pedro. The petitioners claimed they discovered these fraudulent acts only in 1977 when the respondents asserted sole ownership. The respondent court, however, dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court set aside the dismissal order and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The Court held that the respondent court erred in peremptorily dismissing the complaint based solely on prescription. The legal logic is that a motion to dismiss hypothetically admits the truth of the factual averments in the complaint. The complaint contained specific allegations that the petitioners discovered the fraud only in 1977, which, if proven, would negate the defense of prescription for an action based on implied trust arising from fraud. The prescriptive period for such an action is counted from the discovery of the fraud.
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the action was not merely for reconveyance but also for partition and quieting of title, which can be imprescriptible among co-owners. The respondent court itself noted in its order that the contested documents were “invalid” and “fraudulent” insofar as they affected the petitioners’ shares. Given these factual averments requiring evidentiary substantiation, a full-blown trial was necessary to determine the extent of the fraud and to apply the correct legal precepts in law and equity. The Supreme Court found that a shortcut dismissal would impede, rather than promote, a judicious dispensation of justice.