Asuncion v. Pineda
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioner Marciano Asuncion filed a complaint for reconveyance with damages against the Heirs of Spouses Maria Oliveros and Alejandro Soriano, and the Heirs of Spouses Sotero Oliveros and Fausta Alarcon. Petitioner claimed 3.5 hectares of land covered by T.C.T. No. 15394, alleging that the property was held in trust by the private respondents' grandfather, Macario Oliveros, for the benefit of petitioner's father, Filemon Oliveros Asuncion. Petitioner asserted that Filemon possessed and cultivated the disputed land long before the title was issued, and that Macario agreed to hold the title in trust for Filemon to facilitate Macario's homestead patent application. Petitioner and his father continued to cultivate and possess the land after Macario's death. Procedural History: In a related Civil Case No. 21048 (an action for partition filed by the Heirs of Maria Oliveros against the Heirs of Sotero Oliveros), petitioner filed a motion for intervention, claiming the same 3.5 hectares based on possession and cultivation. The Court of First Instance denied the intervention, ruling that petitioner's claim of ownership based on possession could not prevail over a Torrens Title, which becomes indefeasible after one year from registration. The Court of Appeals affirmed this denial, and the decision became final and executory. Subsequently, the Heirs of Maria Oliveros moved to dismiss the present complaint for reconveyance in Civil Case No. 26938, citing res judicata. The respondent Judge granted the motion, finding that the facts and cause of action were identical to the denied intervention and that the denial order was final and executory. Petitioner's motion for reconsideration and subsequent appeal were denied. He then filed the instant petition for review on certiorari. The Petition: Petitioner seeks the annulment of the order dismissing his complaint, raising two issues: (A) whether the denial of his motion to intervene bars his action for reconveyance under Section 102 of the Land Registration Law, and (B) whether such an action for reconveyance is subject to prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the denial of petitioner's motion for intervention in Civil Case No. 21048 constitutes res judicata barring the present action for reconveyance. Whether an action for reconveyance to enforce a trust is subject to prescription under Act 496.
Ruling
The petition is dismissed. The Court ruled that the denial of the motion for intervention is not res judicata to the present action for reconveyance. However, the action for reconveyance is barred by prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of res judicata: The Court held that the denial of petitioner's motion for intervention in Civil Case No. 21048 does not constitute res judicata with respect to the present case. The essential requisites for res judicata include a judgment on the merits, which was absent in the denial of the intervention. Furthermore, the petitioner was not a party to Civil Case No. 21048, as his intervention was denied, and he did not participate in the trial. Even if he were considered a party, Civil Case No. 21048 was still pending when the present case was filed, meaning there was no final judgment yet. The defense of res judicata should have been raised in the answer and resolved after trial on the merits, not through a motion to dismiss, especially when one set of respondents admitted petitioner's claim. On the issue of prescription: The Court ruled in the affirmative, holding that the action for reconveyance is barred by prescription. The Original Certificate of Title (O.C.T.) No. 10 in the name of Macario Oliveros was issued in 1917, almost sixty years before the filing of the present complaint. Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that an implied or constructive trust was created in favor of Filemon O. Asuncion under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, an action to reconvey real property based on such a trust is subject to prescription. The Court cited Sinaon vs. Sorongon and Medina v. Court of Appeals, among others, to support the principle that an action to recover real property based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes. The Court also noted that the alleged trust was sought to be proven by oral evidence, which is unreliable and cannot prevail against a Torrens Title, especially after such a long period of possession by the registered owners.
Main Doctrine
The denial of a motion for intervention, not being a judgment on the merits of the main case, does not constitute res judicata. Furthermore, an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, even if proven, is subject to prescription, especially when the original certificate of title has been outstanding for a considerable period.