G.R. No. L-15757; May 31, 1961
Alberta de Pasion, plaintiff-appellee, vs. Florentino de Pasion, defendant. Adriana Anca, intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

Bernardino de Pasion was married twice: first to an unnamed woman with whom he had a son, Ramon de Pasion, and second to Epifania Anca. Bernardino obtained a homestead patent for a parcel of land, and a certificate of title was issued solely in his name in 1929. After Bernardino’s death in 1938, his son Ramon executed an extrajudicial partition in 1941, adjudicating the entire land to himself and securing a new transfer certificate of title. Ramon later sold and repurchased portions of the land. Alberta de Pasion, an acknowledged natural child of Epifania, filed an action to annul the partition and recover her alleged share. Adriana Anca, Epifania’s only surviving sister, intervened, claiming she was entitled to half of the land as Epifania’s legitimate heir.
The trial court dismissed both complaints, ruling that their causes of action, based on fraud in the 1941 partition, had prescribed. Only intervenor Adriana Anca appealed. The parties agreed to limit the litigation to the remaining undivided half of the land.

ISSUE

Whether the intervenor-appellant Adriana Anca’s action to claim a share of the homestead land has prescribed or is otherwise barred.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the intervenor’s complaint but on a different legal ground than prescription. The Court clarified the application of prescription to registered land. While a Torrens title is generally imprescriptible, this protection extends only to the registered owner or their successors-in-interest. A claimant who is not the registered owner, such as the intervenor, must bring an action within the prescriptive period. An action based on fraud prescribes in four years. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if the principle of constructive trust (where a right against a trustee for breach of trust does not prescribe) were applicable, it would not benefit the intervenor.
The decisive reason for denying the intervenor’s claim is her lack of hereditary right. The land, being conjugal property of Bernardino and Epifania, upon Epifania’s death, passed to her heirs. The evidence established that Alberta de Pasion was the acknowledged natural child of Epifania. Under the applicable old Civil Code provisions, an acknowledged natural child excludes collateral relatives, such as a sister, in the order of intestate succession. Therefore, Adriana Anca, as Epifania’s sister, is not the legal heir entitled to inherit Epifania’s share; that right pertains to Alberta. Since the intervenor has no valid right to the property, her action must fail.