G.R. No. L-72623 December 18, 1989
TEODOSIA C. LEBRILLA and FERNANDO C. LEBRILLA, petitioners, vs. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT and HEIRS OF THE DECEASED SPOUSES PABLO DE CASTRO AND FRANCISCA BARRON, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Teodosia and Fernando Lebrilla are the grandchildren of Pablo de Castro from his first marriage. They inherited an undivided interest in three parcels of land from their mother, Maria de Castro. In 1945, they executed a Deed of Sale over their interest in these lots in favor of their step-grandmother, Francisca Barron, for P1,800.00. The document was not registered. After Francisca Barron’s death, her heirs (the respondents) caused the registration of the lands and obtained titles in their names. In 1978, respondents sold one lot to a development corporation.
In 1978, petitioners filed an action for Partition, Reconveyance, and Damages against respondents, claiming the 1945 Deed of Sale was void due to their minority, vitiated consent, and lack of consideration. Fernando Lebrilla later sought to dismiss the case as to him. The Regional Trial Court ruled the sale void. The Intermediate Appellate Court reversed, holding the sale merely voidable and that the action had prescribed.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioners remain co-owners of the disputed properties, which hinges on the validity of the 1945 Deed of Sale and the prescriptibility of their action.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Court’s decision, denying the petition. The Court clarified that while an action for partition among co-owners is generally imprescriptible, it ceases to be a pure partition action and becomes an action to recover title when the defendants assert exclusive ownership, as the respondents did here. Consequently, it was necessary to resolve the validity of the sale to determine if co-ownership still existed.
The Court upheld the validity of the 1945 sale. It found no merit in the claim of fraud or lack of consideration, giving more credence to the testimonies of the notary public and a subscribing witness that the deed’s contents were explained and the price was paid, over the petitioners’ self-serving allegations. The alleged defects, including Fernando’s minority at the time, merely rendered the contract voidable, not void. Any action for annulment on the ground of minority had prescribed, as Fernando failed to file suit within four years after reaching majority in 1950.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that the action had prescribed. Assuming the sale was defective, an action based on a written contract prescribes in ten years under Article 1144 of the Civil Code. Even counting from 1945 or 1950, the 1978 complaint was filed out of time. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten years from the date of registration of the title, was also barred, as the titles were issued in the 1960s. The petitioners’ inaction for over three decades until a lucrative sale in 1978 undermined their claim.