GR L 19012; (October, 1967) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19012; October 30, 1967
Victoria Julio, plaintiff-appellant, vs. Emiliano Dalandan and Maria Dalandan, defendants-appellees.
FACTS
Plaintiff Victoria Julio filed a complaint against defendants Emiliano Dalandan and Maria Dalandan, heirs of Clemente Dalandan, based on a sworn “SALAYSAY” (Statement) executed by Clemente Dalandan on September 8, 1950. In the document, Clemente acknowledged that a four-hectare riceland owned by Victoriana Dalandan (Victoria Julio’s mother and sole heir) was foreclosed because it was posted as security for an obligation he assumed but failed to fulfill. He promised to replace the foreclosed land with another farm of more than four hectares. The document also stipulated that his children (the defendants) could not be forced to give up the harvest of the farm, and the replacement land could not be demanded immediately. Victoria Julio attested to and accepted the terms of the statement. The complaint alleged that the land referred to was six small parcels totaling barely two hectares, which were the only land owned by Clemente at the time. After Clemente’s death, plaintiff requested defendants to deliver the land, but they refused, insisting that the agreement prohibited immediate delivery. Plaintiff then demanded that defendants fix a period for delivery, which they refused. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription, holding that the 10-year period from the date of the document had elapsed.
ISSUE
Whether the lower court correctly dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s order of dismissal. The Court interpreted the document as creating an express trust in favor of Victoria Julio. By the terms of the document, Clemente Dalandan divested himself of ownership of the land, transferring the naked ownership to Victoria Julio, but withholding the enjoyment of fruits and physical possession. The defendants, as heirs, held the property as usufructuaries and trustees for an undetermined period. The action to enforce the trust, being one for specific performance by a trustee to convey property held in trust, does not prescribe. The Court held that prescription cannot be invoked as a defense in an action to recover property held in trust for the benefit of another. The case was remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.