Pasion v. Pasion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alberta de Pasion filed an action seeking to annul an extrajudicial partition executed by Florentino de Pasion, the transfer certificate of title issued pursuant thereto, and to obtain an accounting of fruits. Alberta claimed ownership of 3/4 of the property, while Florentino asserted it was his exclusive property. Adriana Anca intervened, claiming entitlement to one-half of the land as the sole legitimate heir of Epifania Anca, the second wife of Bernardino de Pasion. The land in litigation originated from a homestead application by Bernardino de Pasion, with a patent and title issued in his name. Ramon de Pasion, Bernardino's son from his first marriage, executed an extrajudicial partition adjudicating the land to himself, and subsequently sold and repurchased it. He later sold half of the land to Manuel Trias. The action was limited to the remaining undivided half. Procedural History: The trial court dismissed the complaints of both Alberta de Pasion and Adriana Anca, finding their actions had prescribed, as they were based on fraud and filed more than four years after the land was registered in Ramon de Pasion's name in 1941. Only Adriana Anca appealed. The Petition: Adriana Anca appealed the trial court's decision, arguing that her action was imprescriptible because the land was covered by a homestead patent with the nature of a Torrens title, and that the land was conjugal property, thus one-half should be deemed registered in the name of her sister, Epifania Anca.
Issue(s)
Whether the intervenor's action has prescribed. Whether the intervenor is entitled to inherit the portion of land belonging to her sister, Epifania Anca.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the lower court, dismissing the intervenor's appeal. The Court ruled that the intervenor's right to claim the land had prescribed, not because of the nature of the Torrens title, but because she was not the proper heir entitled to inherit the portion belonging to her sister, Epifania Anca. The Court found that Alberta de Pasion, being an acknowledged natural child of Epifania, had a superior right to inherit, thus excluding the intervenor, who was Epifania's sister.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the imprescriptibility of a Torrens title can only be invoked by the registered owner. Since the intervenor, Adriana Anca, was not the registered owner of the land in litigation, she could not claim imprescriptibility. Her action, based on fraud, should have been filed within four years from the time the land was registered in Ramon de Pasion's name in 1941. Therefore, her right of action had prescribed. On the intervenor's right to inherit: The Court found that the intervenor's claim to the portion of land belonging to her sister, Epifania Anca, was untenable. While the principle of constructive trusteeship was mentioned as a potential basis for an imprescriptible right against a trustee who committed a breach of trust, this principle was not applicable in this case. The evidence showed that Alberta de Pasion was an acknowledged natural child of Epifania Anca. As such, Alberta's right to inherit the undivided portion belonging to Epifania excluded the intervenor, who, as Epifania's sister, was a collateral relative and only came next in line of intestate succession under Articles 939 and 946 of the old Civil Code. Consequently, the intervenor did not have any right to claim the portion of land belonging to her sister.
Main Doctrine
The imprescriptibility of a Torrens title can only be invoked by the registered owner. A claimant who is not the registered owner must file their action within the prescriptive period. However, the principle of constructive trusteeship may apply, but the right to claim is still subject to the rules of succession, excluding collateral relatives if there is a nearer heir.