GR L 17044; (April, 1962) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-17044; April 28, 1962
EUSTAQUIO JUAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICENTA ZUÑIGA, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
The plaintiffs, legitimate heirs of Ines Francisco, sought to recover her one-fourth share in a parcel of friar land. Upon the death of their mother Luciana Ciderio in 1931, her four legitimate children—Ines, Crisanto, Ciriaco, and Bartolome, all surnamed Francisco—became her sole heirs. However, in 1932, the three brothers executed an extrajudicial partition, fraudulently excluding Ines and adjudicating the entire property solely among themselves. This partition was registered, resulting in a new title in their names. Ines Francisco died in 1939 without having asserted her rights. The brothers later sold their shares to defendant Vicenta Zuñiga. Ciriaco Francisco died, leaving his share to his daughter, defendant Gavina Francisco.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether the plaintiffs’ action to recover the hereditary share of their mother, Ines Francisco, has prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the action had prescribed concerning the shares acquired by Vicenta Zuñiga, a purchaser in good faith for value of registered land. However, the action against Gavina Francisco, the heir of Ciriaco Francisco, is imprescriptible. The Court differentiated between an action for reconveyance based on fraud against an innocent purchaser for value and an action to enforce a constructive trust against the actual fraudfeasor or his heir. The fraudulent exclusion of Ines Francisco from the partition created a constructive trust in favor of her heirs over the portion wrongfully taken by her co-heirs. An action to enforce such a constructive trust does not prescribe. The principle that registration serves as constructive notice, which bars an action after the prescriptive period, does not apply when the property is held in trust. The defense of prescription cannot be set up against an action to recover property held by a person for the benefit of another. Therefore, while the claim against Zuñiga was barred, the claim to recover the excess portion received by Ciriaco Francisco (and now held by his heir Gavina) through fraud was not subject to prescription. The case was remanded for further proceedings against Gavina Francisco.