"If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes." An action for reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in 10 years as it is an obligation created by law, to be counted from the date of issuance of the Torrens title over the property. This rule, however, applies only when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of
35Reiterated in Municipality of Victorias v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 32 (1987). 36Cabanos v. Register of Deeds, 40 Phil. 620; Severino vs. Severino, 41 Phil. 343.
the property. … there is no prescription when in an action for reconveyance, the claimant is in actual
possession of the property because this in effect is an action for quieting of title. PNB v. Jumamoy,
G.R. No. 169901, 03 August 2011.
Moreover, the prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession thereof. Otherwise, if the plaintiff is in possession of the property, prescription does not commence to run against him. Thus, when an action for reconveyance is nonetheless filed, it would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible. Brito v. Dianala, 638 SCRA 529 (2010).
When the plaintiff in such action is not in possession of the subject property, the action prescribes in ten years from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. When the plaintiff is in possession of the subject property, the action, being in effect that of quieting of title to the property, does not prescribe. In the case at bar, petitioners (who are the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 98-021) are not in possession of the subject property. Civil Case No. 98-021, if it were to be considered as that of enforcing an implied trust, should have therefore been filed within ten years from the issuance of TCT No. T-5,427 on December 22, 1969. Civil Case No. 98-021 was, however, filed on August 20, 1998, which was way beyond the prescriptive period. Heirs of Domingo Valientes v. Ramas, 638 SCRA 444 (2010).
Prescription Cannot Apply When Title of Trustee Void Due to Forgery – It is well settled that an action for reconveyance of real property to enforce an implied trust prescribes in ten year, the period reckoned from the issuance of the adverse title to the property which operates as a constructive notice. Gonzales v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 204 SCRA 106 (1991).
As previously stated, the rule that a trustee cannot, by prescription, acquire ownership over property entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to express trust and resulting implied trusts, However, in constructive trusts, prescription may supervene even if the
trustee does not repudiate the relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of the said trust is not a condition
precedent to the running of the prescriptive period. A constructive trust, unlike an express trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in an express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are linked by confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary. The relation of trustee and cestui que trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a constructive trust is for the trustee himself, and therefore, at all times adverse. Cañezo v. Rojas, 538 SCRA 242 (2007).
An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property. Without an Original Certificate of Title (OCT), the date from whence the prescriptive period could be reckoned is unknown and it could not be determined if indeed the period had already lapsed or not. Pedrano v. Heirs of Benedicto Pedrano, 539 SCRA 401 (2007).
An aggrieved party may file an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten years from the date of issuance of the certificate of title over the property provided that the property has not been acquired by an innocent purchaser for value. Khemani v.
Heirs of Anastacio Trinidad, 540 SCRA 83 (2007).
Where the facts deemed admitted showed that the signature of the petitioners, being forced heirs, in the extrajudicial settlement with sale has been forged, and although title to the land had been registered in the name of the buyer, the contract is void, and the action to seek the declaration of nullity is imprescriptible under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, and is not to be governed by the principles of implied trust. Macababbad v. Masirag, 576 SCRA 70 (2009).
Close Relationship and Continued Recognition of Trust Relationship – On the other hand,
laches, being rooted in equity, is not always to be applied strictly in a way that would obliterate an otherwise valid claim especially between blood relatives. The existence of a confidential relationship based upon consanguinity is an important circumstance for consideration; hence, the doctrine is not to be applied mechanically as between near relatives. Estate of Margarita D. Cabacungan, v.
Laigo G.R. No. 175073, 15 August 2011.
The doctrine of laches (here, 19 years from the time the Deed of Donation was executed by the father in the name of the sister, but for the equal benefit of the brother) is not to be applied mechanically as between near relatives, in this case between brother and sister, which would tend to excuse what otherwise may be considered a long delay in taking action. Moreover, continued recognition of the existence of the trust, in this case by letters written by the sister to the brother, recognizing the trust relationship, precludes the defense of laches. Adaza v. CA, 171 SCRA 369 (1989).