G.R. No. L-41154 January 29, 1988
SILVERIO VERAN, LUIS VERAN, CRISTINA VERAN, LEON VERAN, GREGORIO SALAMERA, and GENEROSA SALAMERA, petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS and PRIMITIVA VILLAREAL, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, heirs of Aleja Glodoveza, filed an action to recover possession of a parcel of land in Atimonan, Quezon, registered in Aleja’s name, from respondent Primitiva Villareal. Petitioners alleged they merely allowed Villareal, a cousin, to build a house on a portion of the land but that she refused to vacate upon demand. Villareal, in her defense, claimed co-ownership by inheritance from their common ancestor. She asserted that the land, Lot No. 1744, was originally owned pro-indiviso by three sisters—Leocadia (Villareal’s mother), Aleja (petitioners’ predecessor), and Ladislawa. She alleged an oral extrajudicial partition had allocated specific portions to each sister, with her occupying the portion allotted to Leocadia. Villareal counterclaimed for reconveyance, alleging the petitioners secured title through fraud.
The trial court initially decided for the petitioners. However, upon Villareal’s motion for reconsideration, it set aside its decision to allow her to present evidence, including a deposition from witness Apolonia Glodoveza. The trial court later denied admission of this deposition and, after trial, ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them owners and ordering Villareal to vacate.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in reversing the trial court’s decision, particularly in its appreciation of evidence regarding the alleged oral partition and the action for reconveyance.

RULING

The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals. The appellate court correctly found that the trial court erred in rejecting the deposition of Apolonia Glodoveza. The witness was of advanced age, and her testimony was crucial as it corroborated the existence of the oral extrajudicial partition among the three sisters, detailing the specific portions of Lot No. 1744 allotted to each. This evidence, coupled with a subdivision plan (Exhibit 4) prepared after title issuance which divided the lot into three parts corresponding to the sisters, sufficiently supported Villareal’s claim of co-ownership and the subsequent fraudulent registration by petitioners of the entire lot in Aleja’s name alone.
Furthermore, the Court ruled that Villareal’s counterclaim for reconveyance, filed in 1961, was not barred by prescription. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust arising from fraud prescribes in ten years. The title was issued in 1953, and the counterclaim was filed well within this prescriptive period. The Court also noted that the pendency of an unrelated administrative case before the Bureau of Lands was correctly disregarded by the Court of Appeals, as the decision from that proceeding was never formally offered in evidence at trial. Consequently, no reversible error was committed by the Court of Appeals in dismissing the complaint and ordering the reconveyance of the designated portion (Lot No. 1744-B) to Villareal’s heirs.