GR L 19060; (May, 1964) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-19060. May 29, 1964. IGNACIO GERONA, MARIA CONCEPCION GERONA, FRANCISCO GERONA and DELFIN GERONA, petitioners, vs. CARMEN DE GUZMAN, JOSE DE GUZMAN, CLEMENTE DE GUZMAN, FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, RUSTICA DE GUZMAN, PACITA DE GUZMAN and VICTORIA DE GUZMAN, respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Ignacio, Maria Concepcion, Francisco, and Delfin Gerona are the children of Placida de Guzman, who was the daughter of Marcelo de Guzman from his first marriage. After Marcelo’s first wife died, he married Camila Ramos, with whom he had the respondents. Upon Marcelo’s death in 1945, respondents executed an extrajudicial settlement on May 6, 1948, falsely representing themselves as the sole heirs, thereby excluding petitioners. This deed was registered on June 25, 1948, leading to the cancellation of the original titles and the issuance of new certificates of title solely in the respondents’ names.
Petitioners alleged they discovered the fraud only in 1956 or 1957. They filed an action on November 4, 1958, seeking annulment of the deed, reconveyance of a 1/8th share of the properties, accounting, and damages. Respondents countered that Placida was a spurious child and that the action was barred by prescription. The trial court found Placida was legitimate but dismissed the complaint on grounds of prescription, a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals.
ISSUE
Whether petitioners’ action for annulment of the extrajudicial settlement and reconveyance based on fraud has prescribed.
RULING
Yes, the action has prescribed. While an action for partition among co-heirs generally does not prescribe, this rule ceases when a co-heir asserts title adverse to the others. By executing and registering the extrajudicial settlement claiming exclusive ownership, respondents repudiated the co-ownership and set up an adverse title against petitioners from that moment. Consequently, the statute of limitations became applicable.
The action is essentially one for reconveyance based on an implied trust arising from fraud, which prescribes in four years from the discovery of the fraud. Registration of the deed on June 25, 1948, constituted constructive notice to the whole world. Therefore, the four-year prescriptive period began to run from that date for petitioners who were of age. Ignacio Gerona, who reached majority in March 1948, and Maria Concepcion, who reached majority in December 1949, had four years from their respective dates of constructive discovery to file suit but failed to do so by 1958. Minors Francisco and Delfin had two years after reaching majority to file, which expired in 1954 and 1956, respectively. Since the complaint was filed only in November 1958, it was filed beyond all applicable prescriptive periods. The decision of the Court of Appeals was affirmed.