GR 50837; (December, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. 50837 December 28, 1992
NARCISO BUENAVENTURA and MARIA BUENAVENTURA, Petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS and MANOTOK REALTY, INC., Respondents.
FACTS
Julian Caiña was the tenant-occupant of Lot 20, owned by the Republic and administered by the PHHC (later NHA). The lot was to be sold to qualified tenants. Julian died on December 17, 1961, before the lot could be transferred to him. He was survived by his brother Justo Caiña, Justo’s children Lorenzo Caiña and Francisca Caiña-Rivera, and the petitioners Narciso and Maria Buenaventura (children of Emeteria Caiña Buenaventura, a predeceased sibling). On November 4, 1965, the PHHC executed a Deed of Absolute Sale over the lot to Lorenzo and Francisca as the sole heirs of Julian. TCT No. 21013 was issued to them on November 5, 1965. They sold the lot to Francisco Custodio on January 26, 1966, who in turn sold it to respondent Manotok Realty, Inc. on the same date, with corresponding titles issued. On December 24, 1976, petitioners filed a complaint for Annulment of Titles, Contracts and/or Sales, Reconveyance and Damages against Lorenzo, Francisca, NHA, Custodio, and Manotok. The trial court denied Manotok’s Motion to Dismiss based on prescription. The Court of Appeals reversed, ordering the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription. Petitioners argue their action, based on fraud and simulation, is imprescriptible under Article 1410 of the Civil Code.
ISSUE
Whether the action for annulment and reconveyance filed by the petitioners has prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action has prescribed. The Court of Appeals correctly ordered the dismissal of the complaint. Petitioners’ allegation in their complaint that fraud was employed in the execution of the deed of sale and issuance of the title renders their action for reconveyance susceptible to prescription. Even assuming the circumstances created an implied or constructive trust, the action prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title. The title was issued on November 5, 1965, but the action was filed only on December 28, 1976, which is beyond the ten-year prescriptive period. Independently of prescription, the doctrine of laches also bars the action, as petitioners delayed asserting their rights for over a decade despite knowledge of the sale, to the prejudice of innocent purchasers for value. The petition is denied and the appealed decision is affirmed.