HEIRS OF JOSE OLVIGA, NAMELY: PLACIDA S. OLVIGA, VIRGILIO OLVIGA, LOLITA OLVIGA, CARMENCITA O. ALPUERTO and JEANETTE OLILA, vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ANGELITA R. GLOR, SERILINA G. JAMON, EMELITA G. MADELA, EMAN G. MANALO, MYRNA GLOR, FELIPE GLOR, GAUDENCIO GLOR and CORNELIO GLOR.
- G.R. Number: G.R. No. 104813
- Promulgated: 1993-10-21
- Ponente: Griño-Aquino, J.
Doctrine
An action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust generally prescribes in ten years measured from registration or issuance of title, but that rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession.
Actual, undisturbed possession by a claimant gives a continuing equitable right to seek reconveyance or quiet title, and the claimant may await disturbance or attack before suing.
Findings of fact by the trial court, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals and supported by substantial evidence, will not be displaced by this Court.
Facts
Trial court rendered judgment ordering reconveyance of the disputed land to plaintiffs (heirs of Cornelio Glor Sr.), awarded P5,000 attorneys' fees and costs, and dismissed defendants' counterclaim.
Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial court in toto; petitioners then sought review in this Court contesting prescription, possession, and other matters.
Private respondents and predecessors-in-interest occupied and improved the land since 1950; the Bureau of Lands surveyed it in 1956 in the name of Eutiquio Pureza; petitioners' title was issued in 1967 and allegedly discovered by plaintiffs in 1988.
Issues
Whether the present action for reconveyance has prescribed.
Whether the cause of action accrued in 1967 (date of issuance of title) or in 1988 (when plaintiffs learned of the title).
Whether mere homestead transferees (private respondents) can maintain an action for reconveyance.
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its factual findings on possession, fraud, prescription and purchaser in good faith.
Ruling
The Court denied the petition for review and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision in toto; costs against petitioners.
On prescription: where the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance (to quiet title) does not prescribe; plaintiffs' undisturbed possession since 1950 gave them a continuing right, and their action did not prescribe.
The Court upheld the appellate and trial courts' factual findings as based on substantial evidence and declined to disturb them.
Keywords
G.R. No. 104813, reconveyance, attorney's fees, costs of suit, prescription, purchaser in good faith, forest land, homestead application, transfer of rights, cadastral proceeding, fraud, Original Certificate of Title No. 0-12713, TCT Nos. T-103823, TCT No. 241314, innocent purchasers for value, quieting of title, implied trust, constructive trust, cause of action, possession