Imprescriptible

As a general rule, filing of actions should be done within a certain prescribed period. Otherwise it will be barred because of prescription or laches (unreasonable delay in enforcing equitable rights). But in this case of the heirs of Maria, the rule on prescription or laches was not applied.

The case involved a parcel of land containing an area of 350 sq. meters registered in Maria’s name (TCT No. 50384) on which their ancestral home was erected. The lot was first mortgaged in favor of the spouses Franco and Idad on September 20, 1974.

Later, after the mortgage was cancelled, Maria sold the property to Idad on May 16, 1976. As a result of the sale, TCT No. 50384 was cancelled and a new title was issued in the name of the spouses. Subsequently, the spouses transferred the property to their son Lando thru another deed of sale. So a new title (TCT 193973) was issued in the name of the latter.

After Maria’s death, Lando tried to eject the heirs of Maria in the ancestral home. Thus two of the heirs, Celia and Ceso, filed a complaint for declaration of the inexistence of Contract, annulment of title, reconveyance and damages against Lando. They prayed principally that the TCT 193973 be cancelled and the property be reconveyed to them.

While this case was still pending, Maria’s other heirs namely Sebio, Tess, Ceso, Rita and Larry also filed a complaint for annulment of the TCT and the Deed of Absolute Sale against the spouses Franco and Idad and their son Lando. They averred that the Deed of Sale dated May 16, 1976 in favor of the spouses was simulated as their mother’s signature was forged; so was the sale by the spouses in favor of their son.

The Spouses Franco and Idad and their son Lando however filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. Aside from the fact that there was already another pending case previously filed by the other heirs Celia and Ceso, they also raised as ground that the heirs right of action for the annulment of the Deed of Sale and TCT No. 193973 has long prescribed and barred by laches. Were they correct? 

No. The action for reconveyance on the ground that the certificate of title was obtained by means of a fictitious deed of sale is virtually an action for the declaration of its nullity, which does not prescribe. Moreover, a person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of law, a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property. While an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years, the prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff (the heirs) is not in possession of the property. Otherwise if the plaintiff is in possession of the property, prescription does not commence to run against him. Thus, when an action for reconveyance is nonetheless filed, it would be in the nature of the suit for quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.

It follows then that the heirs’ present action should not be barred by laches. Laches is a doctrine in equity, which may be used only in the absence of, and never against, statutory law. Obviously, it cannot be set up to resist the enforcement of an imprescriptible legal right. 

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

*      *      *