GR L 6307; (April, 1954) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-6307; April 20, 1954
FELICIANO MANALANG and MACARIA CATACUTAN, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. GERCIA CANLAS ET AL., defendants-appellees.
FACTS
On May 24, 1919, plaintiffs-appellants purchased a parcel of land in San Fernando, Pampanga from Juan Canlas, who executed a deed of sale in their favor. The land was later adjudicated to Canlas in cadastral proceedings and became Lot No. 2981. Canlas promised to deliver the owner’s copy of the certificate of title once issued, but died before its issuance. The plaintiffs took possession of the land at the time of sale and have remained in possession. The defendants-appellees are the surviving widow and children of Juan Canlas. Original Transfer Certificate of Title No. 4680 was eventually issued in the name of Juan Canlas. Upon discovering the title referred to the land sold to the plaintiffs, the defendants delivered the title to them. However, the original deed of sale was a private document in Pampango and could not be registered. The defendants refused to execute a proper registerable deed of confirmation to enable the plaintiffs to be substituted as owners on the certificate of title. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing the action had prescribed because more than ten years had elapsed since the 1919 sale and because the sale was executed prior to the issuance of the decree of registration. The Court of First Instance of Pampanga granted the motion to dismiss, holding that the action to recover ownership prescribed in ten years and that under the Land Registration Act, it was filed beyond the one-year period from the decree’s issuance.
ISSUE
Whether the plaintiffs’ action to compel the defendants to execute a confirmatory deed for the property registered in the name of their predecessor-in-interest has prescribed.
RULING
No, the action has not prescribed. The Supreme Court reversed the order of dismissal. The action is one for specific conveyance of property registered in the name of the defendants’ predecessor, Juan Canlas. The certificate of title was issued in Canlas’s name for and in behalf of, and in trust for the benefit of, the plaintiffs-appellants. Therefore, the action is to compel a trustee to convey property held in trust for the benefit of the cestui que trust (beneficiary), and such an action does not prescribe. The case was remanded to the court of origin for further proceedings.