Feliciano v. Canoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Antonio Feliciano died in 1930, leaving a parcel of land. In 1972, some of his heirs (Leona, Maria, Pedro, Salina) executed an extrajudicial settlement of the estate, appropriating the land among themselves to the exclusion of the heirs of Esteban and Doroteo Feliciano, also deceased children of Antonio. On the same date, they sold portions of the land to Jacinto Feliciano (Pedro's portion), Felisa Feliciano (Salina's portion), and Pedro Canoza (Leona and Maria's portions). Jacinto and Pedro Canoza later applied for and were issued free patents over their respective portions, claiming the land was public land first occupied by their predecessors. Jacinto was issued Free Patent No. (IV-4) 012293 on November 28, 1977, and Pedro Canoza was issued Free Patent No. (IV-4) 012292, leading to OCT No. P-364, on February 23, 1979. Procedural History: On October 18, 1993, the heirs of Esteban and Doroteo Feliciano filed a complaint against Salina Feliciano, Felisa Feliciano, Pedro Canoza, and the heirs of Jacinto Feliciano for the Declaration of Nullity of Documents and Title, Recovery of Real Property and Damages. They alleged that the extrajudicial settlement and sale were done without their consent and participation, and that Canoza and Jacinto falsely declared the property as unoccupied in their free patent applications. The complaint was amended to include recovery of their shares. The respondents, including Pedro Canoza, raised affirmative defenses, including prescription. The RTC ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring the extrajudicial settlement and sale null and void, and ordering reconveyance. The CA reversed the RTC decision, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription, holding that the action prescribed within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud, which was deemed to have occurred upon the issuance of the free patents. The Petition: Petitioners seek to annul the CA's decision, arguing that prescription was not raised on appeal, and even if it were, the action is imprescriptible or the prescriptive period was misapplied.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription of action, despite the issue not being assigned as an error on appeal. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the action prescribes in four (4) years, or in not holding that the action is imprescriptible. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not affirming the decision of the trial court, considering the application of the prescriptive period to the facts.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision dated June 26, 2003, and Resolution dated January 15, 2004, of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 61888 are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription not being assigned as an error: The Court held that while prescription was not explicitly assigned as an error on appeal before the CA, it was raised as an affirmative defense in the respondents' Answer before the RTC. By praying for reliefs consistent with their Answer in their brief before the CA, the respondents were deemed to have adopted the defense of prescription. Furthermore, Rule 9, Section 1 of the Rules of Civil Procedure allows the court to dismiss a claim on the ground of prescription if it appears from the pleadings or evidence that the action is time-barred, even if not specifically assigned as an error. The Court cited Gicano v. Gegato to support the trial court's authority to dismiss an action on prescription based on the record. On the prescriptive period and imprescriptibility of the action: The Court affirmed the CA's ruling that the applicable prescriptive period is four (4) years. The Court clarified that an extrajudicial settlement executed without the participation and consent of some heirs, depriving them of their shares, is fraudulent and voidable, not void. Therefore, an action to set it aside based on fraud must be brought within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud. The Court cited Gerona v. De Guzman, which held that the registration of the deed of extrajudicial settlement constitutes constructive notice to the whole world, and the prescriptive period begins from such discovery. On the application of the prescriptive period to the facts: The Court found that the petitioners filed their complaint on October 18, 1993. This was almost sixteen (16) years after Jacinto Feliciano was issued a free patent on November 28, 1977, and almost fourteen (14) years after Pedro Canoza was issued OCT No. P-364 on November 28, 1979. Since the petitioners are deemed to have constructive notice of the fraud upon the registration of the free patents, their action to annul the extrajudicial settlement had clearly prescribed. Even if the action were treated as one for reconveyance, more than ten (10) years had passed since the cause of action accrued, thus also barring the claim.
Main Doctrine
An action to annul an extrajudicial settlement of estate executed without the participation and consent of some heirs, on the ground of fraud, prescribes within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud, which is deemed to have occurred upon the registration of the deed or the issuance of titles based on fraudulent declarations.