Delayed action

When a land is erroneously registered and titled in the name of another, the owner may file an action for re-conveyance within 10 years from issuance of title. But when said title is obtained through bad faith, misrepresentations, and fraudulent machinations, the ten-year period to file the action is computed from the discovery of the fraud. This is illustrated in this case of Marina.

The land involved here was Lot 153-F with an area of 436 square meters. It was part of the entire Lot 153 owned by Marina’s husband Fidel which was placed under Operation Land Transfer pursuant to PD 27 and subdivided into six lots. Emancipation Patents (EP) were issued on Lots 153-A, B, C, and D were given to various tenants while Lots 153-E and & 153-F were retained and declared in the name of Fidel.

Adjoining said Lot 153 was another land belonging to Luis, another landowner. In 1987, Luis’ land was also placed under Operation Land Transfer and distributed to the tenants. The Department of Agrarian Reform however erroneously included Lot 153-F as among those placed under agrarian reform for which EP A-028390-H and OCT No. 195 was issued in the name of Pinong, one of Luis’ tenants. Thereafter Pinong occupied Lot 153-F and even constructed a house on it. During all this time Fidel remained silent and interposed no objection to the issuance of the EP and OCT in Pinong’s name and the latter’s occupancy of the same which was just adjacent to their own house.

In 1998 or after the death of Fidel however, his wife Marina filed a complaint for annulment and cancellation of OCT No 195 under EP No A-028390-H covering Lot 153-F occupied by Pinong. She argued that she never knew that the subject land was part of her husband’s estate, averring that it was only on November 21, 1997 through a relocation survey when she discovered that the land where Pinong constructed his house was part of her husband’s estate.

Pinong however insisted that he had been in possession of the subject land in concept of an owner and even constructed his house thereon since 1987 when the EP and the OCT was issued in his name without any objection from Fidel. He also claimed that Marina’s action has already prescribed. Was Pinong correct?

Yes. Considering that there appears to be a mistake in the issuance of the subject EP (A-028390-H) to Pinong who was admittedly a tenant of Luis and not of Fidel, then the registration of the title to Lot 153-F in Pinong’s name (OCT 195) is likewise erroneous. In such a case, the specific remedy of the rightful owner prescribed by law is an action for re-conveyance.

In an action for re-conveyance, the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the transfer of the property wrongfully or erroneously registered in the tenant’s name to its rightful owner or to the one who has a better right. The person in whose name the land is registered holds it as a mere trustee.

Nevertheless the action for re-conveyance of registered property based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years (Article 1144, Civil Code) from the date of issuance of the Torrens title which operates as constructive notice to the whole world. The only instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for re-conveyance is when the plaintiff or complainant (Marina in this case) is in possession of the land and the registered owner was never in possession. This is not so in this case because Pinong was already in possession of the land. Since the title in Pinong’s name was registered in 1987, Marina’s action for annulment instituted in 1998 or more than 11 years later was clearly barred by prescription.

If fraud has been committed in obtaining the title, the reckoning point for the computation of the prescriptive period is not from the date of the issuance of the title but from the discovery of fraud. In this case, no fraud was employed by Pinong in obtaining OCT 195. The said title was issued in 1987 when Fidel was still alive who did not even object to Pinong’s occupation of the land after the issuance of the EP and the OCT. So Marina’s discovery in 1997 through relocation survey cannot be considered as the reckoning point for the computation of the prescriptive period since no fraud has been committed in obtaining the title (Rementizo vs. Heirs of Madarieta, G.R. 170318, January 15, 2009).

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

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net