Tamayo v. Callejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Vicente Tamayo and Cirila Velasco-Tamayo owned a parcel of land. Prior to February 1, 1912, they sold the northern portion (22,125-1/3 sq. meters) to Fernando Domantay. After Vicente's death, his widow waived her rights to the remaining portion in favor of their sons, Mariano and Marcos Tamayo. On February 1, 1912, Mariano and Marcos were declared sole heirs. On September 29, 1913, they applied for the registration of approximately 383,509 sq. meters, claiming inheritance. Judgment directed registration of only 205,421 sq. meters, acknowledging the remainder belonged to the estate of Gregorio Flor Mata. Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 2612 was issued in the names of Mariano and Marcos Tamayo on November 15, 1915. On August 22, 1918, Fernando Domantay sold his portion to Aurelio Callejo, who took possession. On May 23, 1930, Marcos sold his share to Mariano, who obtained Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 5486. On February 24, 1940, Mariano sold 70,000 sq. meters to Proceso Estacio. In June 1952, a surveyor was prevented by Callejo from surveying the land. Callejo demanded exclusion of his portion from TCT No. 5486, but Mariano refused. Callejo registered an adverse claim on June 16, 1952. Procedural History: On June 25, 1952, Aurelio Callejo filed a complaint for reconveyance and damages against Mariano Tamayo in the Court of First Instance (CFI) of Pangasinan. The complaint was amended to include Marcos Tamayo. Marcos was declared in default. Mariano Tamayo filed an answer, asserting the land claimed by Callejo was outside his titles and pleading the statute of limitations. The CFI dismissed the complaint, finding the land not included in the Tamayo titles. Callejo appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the CFI decision, declaring the land reconveyed to Callejo, finding it part of the Tamayo titles, and overruling the plea of prescription based on an implied trust. Mariano Tamayo filed a petition for review with the Supreme Court. The Petition: Mariano Tamayo filed a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the decision of the Court of Appeals. The main arguments raised were: (1) the cause of action had prescribed; (2) failure to appeal a decision on possession constituted res judicata; (3) the CA disregarded judicial admissions made by Callejo and his counsel; (4) the CA made conclusions not supported by facts; and (5) the CA erred in not affirming the trial court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Aurelio Callejo's cause of action for reconveyance had prescribed. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that petitioner's failure to appeal a decision on possession constituted res judicata. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding judicial admissions made by respondent Callejo and his counsel. Whether the conclusions of the Court of Appeals were supported by the facts on record. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the decision of the trial court.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, with modification. The Court ruled that the action for reconveyance had not prescribed because an express trust was established, which is not subject to prescription until repudiated. The Court found that the petitioner's arguments regarding res judicata, judicial admissions, and factual findings were without merit. The case was remanded to the court of origin for the preparation and approval of a subdivision plan to precisely define the metes and bounds of the reconveyed area.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1 (Prescription): The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals did not err in overruling the plea of prescription. While the trust created by the initial registration might have been implied, it was substantially affected by an express trust on June 28, 1918, when Mariano Tamayo executed a public instrument explicitly acknowledging the sale of the land by his parents to Fernando Domantay and stipulating his responsibility for the property's ownership. This express recognition imparted an express trust nature to the situation, which is a "continuing and subsisting" trust not subject to the statute of limitations until repudiated. Repudiation did not occur until June 1952, when Mariano Tamayo refused to exclude the disputed portion from his title, and the case was filed shortly thereafter on June 25, 1952, meaning the period of prescription had barely begun to run. On Issue 2 (Res Judicata on Possession): The Supreme Court found this contention manifestly devoid of merit. The Court of Appeals had explicitly acknowledged Callejo's title over the disputed land and declared it reconveyed to him. This declaration necessarily implies that Callejo is entitled to remain in possession of the land, rendering the argument about res judicata on possession irrelevant to the CA's main ruling. On Issue 3 (Judicial Admissions): The Supreme Court clarified that the Court of Appeals did not disregard any judicial admission. The CA noted that while Callejo and his counsel made statements potentially admitting the land in question was Lot 12340 of the Malasiqui cadastre, such admissions could give way to the truth if shown to be due to palpable mistake, especially considering lay witnesses' potential inexactness with technical lot numbers. The Court further explained that Callejo's claim in cadastral case No. 92, referring to Lot 12340, was made simultaneously with the filing of the present reconveyance action, and his answer described the southern boundary of Lot 12340 as Lot 12341, "portion claimed by Aurelio Callejo." This indicated Callejo claimed both Lot 12340 and a portion of Lot 12341. The Court also pointed out that Callejo alleged acquiring Lot 12340 from Maximo Rico, not Fernando Domantay, which was corroborated by Mariano Tamayo's own admission in Exhibit I that the property sold to Domantay was bounded on the north by Maximo Rico's land. These admissions established that Lot 12340 was not the property conveyed to Domantay. On Issue 4 (Conclusions Not Supported by Facts): The Supreme Court found this assignment of error untenable. The argument that the conclusion regarding Lot 12340 being acquired from Maximo Rico was not supported by direct testimonial evidence failed to deny the existence of indirect testimonial evidence and direct documentary evidence, such as petitioner's admission in Exhibit I. Furthermore, the core of this assignment of error, like the third, impugned the CA's finding that the land sold by petitioner's parents to Domantay was within the perimeter of the property covered by TCT No. 5486. This was deemed a question of fact, not reviewable by the Supreme Court on certiorari, as it required an examination of all evidence, witness credibility, and circumstances. On Issue 5 (Not Affirming Trial Court): The Supreme Court found no error in the Court of Appeals' decision not to affirm the trial court's ruling. The CA's factual determination that the land claimed by Callejo was indeed part of the Tamayo titles, based on a thorough examination of evidence including boundary descriptions and documentary proof, superseded the trial court's contrary finding. The Supreme Court, in a petition for certiorari, generally defers to the factual findings of the CA unless there is a showing that such findings were not supported by evidence, were based on a misapprehension of facts, or that the CA overlooked certain relevant facts which, if properly considered, would alter the outcome.
Main Doctrine
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that an express trust, created by the explicit acknowledgment of a prior sale and ownership, is not subject to the statute of limitations until it is repudiated. The Court found that the petitioner's explicit recognition of Fernando Domantay's ownership of the land, through a public instrument, established an express trust. This trust was not repudiated until the petitioner refused to exclude the disputed portion from his title, which occurred shortly before the filing of the reconveyance action, thus rendering the plea of prescription unavailing.