NATURE
Appeal taken from the decision of the CFI dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for reconveyance
FACTS
- On January 1, 1909, Pablo Fabian bought from the Philippine Government lot 164 of the Friar Lands Estate in Muntinlupa, Rizal. He died on August 2, 1928, survived by four children, namely, Esperanza, Benita I, Benita II, and Silbina.
- On October 5, 1928 Silbina Fabian and Teodora Fabian, niece of the deceased, executed an affidavit and on November 14, 1928 the acting Director of Lands, on behalf of the Government, sold lot 164, under deed 17272, to Silbina and Teodora Fabian.
- In 1929, the vendees took physical possession thereof, cultivated it, and appropriated the produce therefrom (and concededly have up to the present been appropriating the fruits from the land exclusively for themselves). In that same year, they declared the lot in their names for taxation purposes under tax declaration 3374. Since 1929 up to the present, they have been paying the real estate taxes thereon.
- On July 18, 1960 the plaintiffs filed the present action for reconveyance against the defendants spouses, averring that Silbina and Teodora, through fraud perpetrated in their affidavit, made it appear that "el finado Pablo Fabian no dejo ningun otro heredero sino los declarantes con derecho a heredar el lote No. 164 de la hacienda de Muntinlupa", which is a false narration of facts because Silbina knew that she is not the only daughter and heir of the deceased Pablo Fabian, and Teodora likewise knew all along that, as a mere niece of the deceased, she was precluded from inheriting from him in the presence of his four surviving daughters. - The defendants claim that Pablo Fabian was not the owner of lot 164 at the time of his death on August 2, 1928 because he had not paid in full the amortizations on the lot; that they are the absolute owners thereof, having purchased it from the Government for the sum of P120, and from that year having exercised all the attributes of ownership thereof up to the present; and that the present action for reconveyance has already prescribed.
- The lower court rendered judgment on June 28, 1962, declaring that the defendants spouses had acquired a valid and complete title to the property by acquisitive prescription, and accordingly dismissed the complaint, with costs against the plaintiffs.
ISSUES
1. WON Pablo Fabian was the owner of lot 164 at the time of his death, in the face of the fact, admitted by the defendants-appellees, that he had not then paid the entire purchase price thereof
2. WON laches may bar an action to enforce a constructive trust
3. WON title to the land has vested in the appellees through the mode of acquisitive prescription
HELD
1. YES
Ratio Lot 164 was a part of the Friar Lands Estate of Muntinlupa, Rizal; its sale to
Pablo Fabian was therefore governed by Friar Lands Act. While under section 15 of the said Act, title to the land sold is reserved to the Government until the purchaser makes full payment of all the required installments and the interest thereon, this legal reservation refers to the bare, naked title. The equitable and beneficial title really went to the purchaser the moment he paid the first installment and was given a certificate of sale. The assignment and sale of the lot to the defendants. Silbina and Teodora were therefore null and void as to that portion sold to Teodora, and as well as to that portion which lawfully devolved in favor of the appellants. To the extent of the participation of the appellants, application must be made of the principle that if property is acquired through fraud, the person obtaining it is considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
Reasoning The reservation of the title in favor of the Government is made merely
to protect the interest of the Government so as to preclude the purchaser from encumbering or disposing of the lot purchased before the payment in full of the purchase price. Outside of this protection the Government retains no right as an owner. And when said purchaser finally pays the final installment on the purchase price and is given a deed of conveyance and a certificate of title, the title at least in equity, retroacts to the time he first occupied the land, paid the first installment and was issued the corresponding certificate of sale.
2. YES
Ratio In constructive trusts, the rule is that laches constitutes a bar to actions to
enforce the trust, and repudiation is not required, unless there is a concealment of the facts giving rise to the trust.
Reasoning Assignment of sale certificate 547 was effected on October 5, 1928;
and the actual transfer of lot 164 was made on the following November 14. It was only on July 8, 1960, 32 big years later, that the appellants for the first time came forward with their claim to the land. It is not seriously asserted that the appellees concealed the facts giving rise to the trust. On the contrary, the stipulation of facts of the parties states with striking clarity "that defendants herein have been in possession of the land in question since 1928 up to the present publicly and
continuously under claim of ownership; they have cultivated it, harvested and appropriated the fruits for themselves."
Obligations and Contracts A2010 page
193
Prof. Labitag
Ratio An action for reconveyance of real property based upon a constructive or
implied trust, resulting from fraud, may be barred by the statute of limitations, and the action therefor may be filed within four years from the discovery of the fraud, the discovery in that case being deemed to have taken place when new certificates of title were issued exclusively in the names of the respondents therein.
Reasoning Upon the undisputed facts in the case at bar, not only had laches set in
when the appellants instituted their action for, reconveyance in 1960, but as well their right to enforce the constructive trust had already prescribed. Ten years
actual adverse possession by any person claiming to be the owner for that time of
any land or interest in land, uninterruptedly continued for ten years by occupancy, descent, grants, or otherwise, in whatever way such occupancy may have
commenced or continued, shall vest in every actual occupant or possessor of such
land a full and complete title.
Disposition The judgment a quo, dismissing the complaint, is affirmed. No
pronouncement as to costs.
Voting Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Bengzon, J.P., Zaldivar, Sanchez,
Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur. Makalintal, J., concurs in the result.
BUENO V REYES
;
28, 1969
MAKALINTAL April
NATURE
An appeal from the decision of the CFI dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint
FACTS
- In January 1936, FRANCISO REYES filed an answer in a cadastral case claiming LOT NO. 2357 to be his and his 2 brothers Juan and Mateo.
- 23 yrs. later the plaintiffs in this case filrd an action of reconveyance of Lot 2357. They said that the land did not belong to Reyes and his brothers
- the land was originally owned by Jorge Bueno. When he died, his 3 children inherited it: Brigida, Eugenia and Rufino. BRigida and Eugenia then died leavingthe land to their respective children and Rufino who are now the plaintiffs in this case. Francisco was Eugenia’s husband. Thus, it is claimed that the land should belong to his children and his wife’s siblings, Brigida nd Rufino\
- The defendants Juan and Mateo Reyes filed their answer (Francisco died already) , in which they raised a number of defenses, including laches, imprescriptibility of title, and prescription of action. The last defense was upheld by the court and now subject of this appeal
- Upon appeal, the appellants/plaintiffs assigned the ff. errors: (1) in the dismissal of the complaint on the ground of prescription; and (2) in the dismissal of the complaint "even in relation to appellants surnamed Reyes, the children of Francisco Reyes
- Both the appellees and the court below proceeded on the theory that the action for reconveyance was predicated on the existence of an implied trust, and that such an action prescribes in 10 years. The appellants counter, in this appeal, that the trust was not implied but express, and that in any case even an implied trust, according to some decisions of this Court, is imprescriptible. On the other hand, the appellants counter by saying that the trust was not implied but express, and is in any case imprescriptible
ISSUES
WON the action for reconveyance prescribes in 10 years
HELD
Yes
Reasoning
- The appellants counter argument is untenable.
-
What was apparently designed to be an express trust was for the late Francisco H. Reyes to file an answer in the cadastral proceeding and to obtain title to the land for and in behalf of all the heirs of Jorge Bueno. But such express trust failed to materialize.- If any trust can be deduced at all from the foregoing facts it was an implied one - While there are some decisions which hold that an action upon a trust is
imprescriptible, without distinguishing between express and implied trusts, the better rule, as laid down by this Court in other decisions, is that prescription does supervene where the trust is merely an implied one.
- Upon the general proposition that an action for reconveyance such as the present is subject to prescription in ten years the appellees and the court a quo are correct. The question here, however is: from what time should the prescriptive period be counted, in the light of the allegations in the complaint?
- the cause of action upon such trust must be deemed to have accrued only upon the discovery of such bad faith or mistake, or to put it more specifically, upon the discovery by the appellants that Francisco H. Reyes, in violation of their agreement with him, had obtained registration of the disputed property in his own name and in the names of his brothers.
- It would not do to say that the cadastral proceeding itself, by virtue of its nature as a proceeding in rem, was constructive notice to the appellants, for as far as they were concerned the cadastral answer they had authorized Francisco H. Reyes to file was not adverse to them; and neither he nor the appellee may invoke the constructive-notice rule on the basis of their own breach of the authority thus given. On top of all this, it was the appellants and not the appellees who were in possession of the property as owners, continuously up to 1962, when for the first time the latter appeared upon the scene and tried to get such possession, thereby revealing to them the fact of the mistaken or fraudulent registration.
- But the foregoing are not facts already established by evidence. They are merely alleged in the complaint. These are matters of defense that must be substantiated at the trial.
- With this view we take of the case, it is unnecessary to take Lip the second error assigned.
Ratio
- If any trust can be deduced at all from the foregoing facts it was an implied one, arising by operation of law not from any presumed intention of the parties but to satisfy the demands of justice and equity and as A protection against unfair dealing or downright fraud. Indeed, in this kind of implied trust, commonly denominated constructive, as distinguished from resulting, trust, there exists a certain antagonism between the cestui que trust and the trustee.
- Thus, for instance, under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, "if property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of a" implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property
Obligations and Contracts A2010 page
194
Prof. Labitag
comes." In a number of cases this Court has held that registration of property by one person in his name, whether by mistake or fraud, the real owner being another person, impresses upon the title so acquired the character of a constructive trust for the real owner, which would justify an action for reconveyance.
- J.B.L. Reyes in J.M. Tuason and Co., Inc. v. Magdangal: "Under Section 40 of the old Code of the Civil Procedure, all actions for recovery of real property prescribes in 10 years, excepting actions based on continuing or subsisting trusts that were considered by Section 38 as imprescriptible. As held in the case of Diaz v. Gorricho, however, the continuing or subsisting trusts contemplated in Section 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure referred only to express unrepudiated trusts, and did not include constructive trusts where no fiduciary relation exists and the trustee does not recognize the trust of all."
Disposition the order appealed from is set aside and the case is remanded for
further proceedings.
TAMAYO V CALLEJO
;
28, 1972
CONCEPCION July
FACTS- This action was brought by Aurelio Callejo, originally against Mariano Tamayo only, and, later, against his brother Marcos Tamayo, also, for the reconveyance of the northern portion of a parcel of land in the names of said brothers. CFI dismissed the complaint. Court of Appeals reversed and the land was declared reconveyed unto him
- It appears that the spouses Vicente Tamayo and Cirila Velasco Tamayo owned a parcel of land in the barrio of Oalsic or Gualsic. Prior to Feb. 1, 1912, said spouses sold part of the northern portion of said land to Fernando Domantay, who took possession thereof.
- Sometime after this sale, but before said date, Vicente Tamayo died. His widow having waived her rights to the remaining portion of their original property in favor of her children Mariano Tamayo and Marcos Tamayo, these brothers were, on February 1, 1912, declared sole heirs of the deceased. The brothers applied for the registration in their names, of a tract of land of about 383,509 square meters, alleging that they had thus inherited the same from their deceased father.
- judgment was rendered, directing the registration, in the name of Mariano Tamayo and Marcos Tamayo, of 205,421 sqm only of the land applied for, said applicants having acknowledged that the remaining portion thereot belonged to the estate of Gregorio Flor Mata, deceased.
- Not long after Fernando Domantay sold his above-mentioned land of 22,125-1/3 square meters to Aurelio Callejo, who took possession thereof since then.
- Subsequently, Marcos Tamayo sold his undivided share in the property (the 200k sqm land) to his brother Mariano Tamayo. Then, Mariano sold 70,000 sqm to Proceso Estacio, upon whose request surveyor Fidel Diaz went to the land for the purpose of preparing a subdivision plan and segregating the 7 hectares thus conveyed by Mariano Tamayo, but Diaz did not accomplish his purpose, for he was not allowed by Callejo to enter the portion held by the latter.
- Callejo asked Mariano Tamayo to cause to be excluded the land held by the former, but the latter refused to do so.
- Then Callejo filed his present complaint for reconveyance and damages
- Having failed to answer the amended complaint, defendant Marcos Tamayo was declared in default, whereas defendant Mariano Tamayo filed his answer with counterclaim. His main defense was that the land claimed by Callejo is outside the perimeter of the area covered by the aforementioned certificates of title.
- Mariano Tamayo pleaded also the statute of limitations.
- CFI rendered a decision dismissing the complaint, upon the ground that the land Purchased by Fernando Domantay from the parents of Mariano and Marcos Tamayo is not included in said titles
- this decision was reversed by CA which found that the land claimed by Callejo is part of the land covered by the aforementioned certificates of title held by Tamayo, and overruled the plea of prescription set up by Mariano Tamayo, upon the theory that the title to said portion of land now claimed by Callejo, and, before, by Fernando Domantay, is held in trust by the Tamayos and that the action to enforce said trust does not prescribe.
- Tamayo maintains that the Court of Appeals has erred: (1) "in not holding that the respondent Aurelio Callejo's cause of action, if any, had already prescribed"; (2) "in holding that the petitioner's failure to appeal from the decision that did not grant him affirmative relief on the matter of possession, constituted res adjudicata thereon"; (3) "in disregarding the judicial admission made by the respondent Callejo and his counsel"; (4) "in making conclusions not supported by the facts on record", (5) "in not affirming the decision rendered by the trial court."
ISSUES
1. WON Callejo’s cause of action had already prescribed
2. WON petitioner’s failure to appeal from the decision that did not grant him affirmative relief constituted res judicata
3. WON the judicial admission made by Callejo and his counsel should have been disregarded
4. WON the court made conclusions not supported by facts 5. WON the Callejo has the right to demand a reconveyance
HELD
1. NO
Ratio Where an implied trust was created in favor of Domantay by the erroneous
inclusion in the Tamayo brothers' certificate of title of the parcel of land formerly sold by their parents to Domantay (who in turn sold it to Aurelio Callejo) and on June 28, 1918, Mariano Tamayo, on his behalf and that of his brother Marcos, expressly recognized the said previous sale by their parents to Domantay, such express recognition had the effect of imparting to the aforementioned trust the nature of an express trust which is not subject to the statute of limitations, at least, until repudiated, in which event the period of prescription begins to run only from the time of the repudiation. In the instant case, repudiation took place only in early June, 1952, when Mariano Tamayo rejected Callejo's demand that the disputed portion be excluded from TCT No. 5486 in the former's name. When the instant case for reconveyance was filed on June 25, 1952, the period of prescription had barely begun to run.
Reasoning It should be noted that although the trust created by the application
Obligations and Contracts A2010 page
195
Prof. Labitag
1913, and the inclusion in OCT No. 2612, issued in their names, on November 15, 1915, of the tract of land previously sold by their parents to Fernando Domantay - and later conveyed by him to Aurelio Callejo - may have had a constructive or implied nature, its status was substantially affected on June 28, 1918, by the following facts, namely: On the date last mentioned, Fernando Domantay and petitioner Mariano Tamayo executed the public instrument whereby Mariano explicitly acknowledged that his deceased parents had sold to Domantay the parcel of land of about 22,125/13 square meters. then held by the latter, and stipulating that Domantay is the absolute owner of said land, free from any lien or encumbrance thereon. This express recognition by Mariano Tamayo of the previous