G.R. No. 94699. January 24, 1992.
REV. FR. VICENTE CORONEL, RODOLFO CORONEL, GERARDO CORONEL, SANTOS CORONEL and DOMINGA CORONEL, petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, REV. FR. RUSTICO CUEVAS, PRISCILLANO CUEVAS, LOURDES CUEVAS SEBASTIAN, NATALIA CUEVAS GARCIA and BRIGIDA CUEVAS JUDI, respondents.

FACTS

The petitioners and respondents are the heirs of Gaudencio Coronel and Querubin Cuevas, respectively, who were themselves co-heirs of Bernarda David Lim. A 1940 Deed of Partition and Grant designated a parcel of land as community property among several heirs, including Gaudencio Coronel and Querubin Cuevas, each holding a 1/12 share. Querubin Cuevas and his family occupied the lot. In 1971, Gaudencio Coronel fraudulently applied for and obtained original registration of the entire lot in his name alone, swearing he was the sole owner and occupant. After his death, his heirs (petitioners) partitioned the property and secured a Transfer Certificate of Title. Respondents discovered the fraud only in 1984 when petitioners sued one of them for unlawful detainer based on that title.

ISSUE

(1) Whether the action for reconveyance had prescribed or was barred by laches; (2) Whether the action constituted an impermissible collateral attack on a certificate of title; and (3) Whether the award of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees was proper.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals. On prescription and laches, the action is not barred. The case is governed by Article 494 of the Civil Code, which states that no prescription runs between co-owners or co-heirs so long as the co-ownership is recognized. Prescription requires adverse, exclusive, and continuous possession by one co-owner against the others. Here, Gaudencio Coronel and his heirs were never in possession; the Cuevas family remained in occupancy. The fraudulent registration did not constitute effective repudiation of the co-ownership as against the other co-heirs who were not in possession. The action, filed upon discovery of the fraud in 1984, was timely. The suit is not a collateral attack on the title but a direct action for reconveyance based on fraud, which is permissible. The title, though indefeasible in general, can be compelled to be reconveyed to the rightful owner when obtained through fraud. The award of litigation expenses and attorney’s fees was justified due to the fraudulent acts of Gaudencio Coronel, which directly caused damage to the respondents, necessitating the litigation to recover their rightful share. The modification by the Court of Appeals reducing the amount was sustained.