Purita Salvatierra v. Honorable Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Enrique Salvatierra died intestate in 1930, survived by his siblings Tomas, Bartolome, Venancio, Macario, and Marcela. His estate included three parcels of land: Lot No. 25 (1,116 sq. m.), Lot No. 26 (749 sq. m.), and Lot No. 27 (670 sq. m.). Macario Salvatierra sold Lot No. 26 to his son, Anselmo Salvatierra, on May 4, 1966. Marcela sold her share to Venancio, and Bartolome's heirs sold their share to Tomas. On September 24, 1968, an "Extrajudicial Partition with Confirmation of Sale" was executed among the heirs. This partition assigned Venancio 1,041 sq. m. (Lot No. 27 and a portion of Lot No. 26), Anselmo (representing Macario) 405 sq. m. of Lot No. 26, and the heirs of Tomas 1,116 sq. m. (Lot No. 25). On June 15, 1970, Venancio sold Lot No. 27 and a 149-sq. m. portion of Lot No. 26 to respondents Lino Longalong and Paciencia Mariano. The Longalongs discovered in 1982 that the 149 sq. m. portion was outside their fence, as Anselmo Salvatierra had obtained a title (OCT No. 0-4221) for the entire 749 sq. m. of Lot No. 26. Efforts to settle the matter failed. Procedural History: The Longalong spouses filed a case for reconveyance of the 149-sq. m. portion of Lot No. 26 with the RTC. The RTC dismissed the case, finding that the Longalongs failed to establish ownership and that the action had prescribed, applying a four-year prescriptive period from discovery of fraud. The Petition: The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC's decision, ordering the reconveyance of the 149-sq. m. portion and awarding attorney's fees. The CA found that Anselmo Salvatierra's registration of the entire Lot No. 26, despite knowing his share was only 405 sq. m. as per the extrajudicial partition, was done with intent to defraud. The CA also ruled that the action had not prescribed, applying the ten-year prescriptive period for actions based on implied trust. Petitioners (heirs of Anselmo Salvatierra) filed the present petition for certiorari, assailing the CA's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the action for reconveyance filed by the respondents has prescribed. Whether the sale of Lot No. 26 to Anselmo Salvatierra involved a "double sale" or an over-sale of his rightful share. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the reconveyance of the 149-sq. m. portion of Lot No. 26.
Ruling
The petition is denied for want of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription: The Court held that the action for reconveyance was not barred by prescription. It clarified that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, arising from fraud or mistake in acquiring property, prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of the issuance of the Torrens title. This is in accordance with Article 1144 of the New Civil Code, which governs actions based on written contracts or obligations created by law. The Court distinguished this from the four-year prescriptive period applicable to voidable contracts under Article 1391, which is not the basis of the present action. The registration of the title in Anselmo Salvatierra's name on May 20, 1980, and the filing of the reconveyance case on November 22, 1985, were well within the ten-year prescriptive period. The Court explicitly rejected the lower court's reliance on cases that applied the four-year period, citing recent jurisprudence that settled the ten-year rule for implied trusts. On the issue of double sale and ownership: The Court found that there was no double sale of Lot No. 26. Instead, Anselmo Salvatierra, through his father Macario, was only entitled to 405 sq. m. of Lot No. 26, as clearly stipulated in the Extrajudicial Partition with Confirmation of Sale. The deed of sale between Macario and Anselmo was found to have been altered to reflect the entire 749 sq. m. of Lot No. 26, indicating evident bad faith and an intent to defraud other heirs, particularly Venancio Salvatierra, who was entitled to the remaining portion of Lot No. 26. The respondents, as successors-in-interest of Venancio, validly acquired the 149 sq. m. portion from Venancio, which was part of his rightful share in the partition. The Court emphasized that a vendor can only sell what they own or are authorized to sell, and Macario Salvatierra could only dispose of his 405 sq. m. share. On the issue of reconveyance: Based on the findings that Anselmo Salvatierra acted in bad faith and with intent to defraud by registering the entire Lot No. 26 when he was only entitled to 405 sq. m., the Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' order for reconveyance. The registration of the title constituted constructive notice, and Anselmo's knowledge of his limited share, established by the extrajudicial partition, created an implied trust in favor of the rightful owners of the remaining portion. The Court found no reversible error in the Court of Appeals' factual findings, which were supported by substantial evidence on record, and thus upheld the order to reconvey the 149-sq. m. portion to the Longalong spouses.
Main Doctrine
An action for reconveyance of registered land based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years from the date of the issuance of the Torrens title over the property, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title.