G.R. No. L-18060 July 25, 1967
REMIGIO JOAQUIN, plaintiff-appellant, vs. ISIDRA COJUANGCO, JOSE COJUANGCO, JR., RAMON COJUANGCO, LOURDES COJUANGCO, JUAN COJUANGCO, EDUARDO COJUANGCO, JR., AURORA COJUANGCO, ISABEL COJUANGCO, MERCEDITA COJUANGCO, MANUEL COJUANGCO, and HENRY COJUANGCO, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Plaintiff-appellant Remigio Joaquin, claiming to be the intestate and testate heir of his deceased uncle Pedro Joaquin (died March 21, 1914), filed an action for recovery of ownership and possession of four parcels of land. The complaint alleged: (1) Parcel (a) was property of Pedro Joaquin but was fraudulently registered by administrators Marcelo Garcia and Alberta Zamora under OCT No. 1579 and later transferred to Isidra Cojuangco and Jose Cojuangco, Sr. via TCT No. 2918; (2) Parcel (b) was similarly fraudulently registered by administrator Lorenzo Mendoza under OCT No. 4695 and transferred to the same Cojuangcos via TCT No. 10487 around 1925; (3) Parcels (c) and (d) were registered under OCT No. 161 in the names of spouses Pedro Joaquin and Teodora Garcia, were mortgaged to the Cojuangcos for P8,640, but were allegedly sold to them through a document with forged signatures. Plaintiff prayed for declaration of ownership, damages, and transfer of titles. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of failure to state a cause of action and prescription. The trial court allowed presentation of evidence on the motion, which showed: for parcel (a), OCT No. 1579 was issued in 1921 and TCT No. 2918 to defendants in 1928; for parcel (b), OCT No. 4695 was issued in 1925 and TCT No. 10487 to defendants in 1936; for parcels (c) and (d), OCT No. 161 was cancelled and TCT No. 20 issued to Jose Cojuangco, Sr. on May 21, 1913 by virtue of a deed of sale. The trial court dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the trial court correctly dismissed the complaint on the grounds that it fails to state a cause of action and is barred by prescription.

RULING

Yes, the order of dismissal is affirmed.
1. Regarding Parcels (a) and (b): The action is barred by extinctive and acquisitive prescription. The issuance of original certificates of title in 1921 and 1925 pursuant to land registration decrees quieted title, subject only to reopening for fraud within one year. Even assuming an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust against the original registered owners (alleged administrators), such action does not lie against the defendant transferees who are not in a fiduciary capacity and who acquired the lands for value. Moreover, defendants’ adverse possession as registered owners since 1928 and 1936, respectively, ripened into ownership by acquisitive prescription (10 years under the Code of Civil Procedure), barring recovery.
2. Regarding Parcels (c) and (d): While a factual issue exists on whether the transaction was a sale or mortgage, plaintiff’s own allegation that he offered to redeem in 1917 and was refused establishes defendants’ adverse possession from that time. Such adverse possession for over 10 years also resulted in acquisitive prescription, barring the action filed in 1959. Thus, the complaint was correctly dismissed. No costs.