G.R. No.

125715 December 29, 1998

RICARDO F. MARQUEZ, AUREA M. CABEZAS, EEQUIE! F. MARQUEZ, SA!"ADOR F. MARQUEZ, AN#ONIO F.
MARQUEZ, $%& RAFAE! F. MARQUEZ, 'R., petitioners,
vs.
COUR# OF A((EA!S, A!FREDO F. MARQUEZ $%& BE!EN F. MARQUEZ, respondents.
During their lifetime, the spouses Rafael Marquez, Sr. and Felicidad Marquez begot twelve children, namely !"#
$atividad% !&# 'urea% !(# )erminigildo% !*# Filomena% !+# ,-equel% !.# Salvador% !/# 0uadencio% !1# Rafael, 2r., !3# 4elen%
!"5# 'lfredo% !""# Ricardo% and !"&# 'ntonio.
Sometime in "3*+, the spouses acquired a parcel of land with a lot area of "." square meters in San 2uan Del Monte,
Rizal, more particularly described in 676 $o. */+/&,
1
wherein the constructed their con8ugal home.
9n "3+&, Felicidad Marquez died intestate. 6hirty years later or in "31&, Rafael Marquez, Sr. e-ecuted an :'ffidavit of
'd8udication: vesting unto himself sole ownership to the property
6hereafter, on December &3, "31( Rafael Marquez, Sr. e-ecuted a :Deed of Donation 9nter ;ivos:
)
covering the land
described in 676 $o. (((+5, as well as the house constructed thereon to three of this children, namely !"# petitioner
Rafael, 2r.% !&# 'lfredo% and !(# 4elen, both private respondents herein, to the e-clusion of his other children
From "31( to "33", private respondents were in actual possession of the land. )owever, when petitioners learned about
the e-istence of 676 $o. */+/&, they immediately demanded that since they are also children of Rafael Marquez, Sr.,
they are entitled to their respective shares over the land in question.
9n view of the private respondents< indifference, petitioners, now 8oined by Rafael 2r., filed a complaint on May (", "33" for
:Reconveyance and =artition with Damages: alleging that the private respondents too> advantage of the advanced age of
their father in ma>ing him e-ecute the said documents, thus ma>ing the other documents fraudulently made.
=etitioners, in contending that the action had not yet prescribed, assert that by virtue of the fraudulent :'ffidavit of
'd8udication: and :Deed of Donation: wherein they were allegedly deprived of their 8ust share over the parcel of land, a
constructive trust was created.
9
Forthwith, they maintain that an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive
trust prescribes in ten !"5# years.
9n their 'nswer, private respondents argued that petitioner<s action was already barred by the statute of limitations since
the same should have been filed within four years from the date of discovery of the alleged fraud.
R67 in favor of petitioners !not yet prescribed#
7' reversed, in favor of respondents !prescribed already#
ISSUE* ?hether their action for reconveyance had prescribed.
RU!ING*
9t must be noted that Felicidad Marquez died in "3+&% thus, succession to her estate is governed by the present 7ivil
7ode. @nder 'rticle 11/ thereof, her compulsory heirs are +er ,e-./.m$/e c+.,&re%, 0e/./.o%er1 $%& 0r.2$/e re10o%&e%/
/+ere.%, $%& +er 10o31e, Rafael Marquez, Sr. $ow, in "31&, 's such, when Rafael Marquez Sr., for one reason or
another, misrepresented in his unilateral affidavit that he was the only heir of his wife when in fact their children were still
alive, and managed to secure a transfer of certificate of title under his name, $ co%1/r3c/.2e /r31/ 3%&er Ar/.c,e 1455
6$1 e1/$b,.1+e&.
9n this regard, it is settled that an action 7or reco%2e8$%ce b$1e& o% $% .m0,.e& or co%1/r3c/.2e /r31/ prescribes in
ten years from the isuance of the 6orrens title over the property.
1)
For the purpose of this case, the prescriptive period
shall start to run when 676 $o. (((+5 was issued, which was on 2une "., "31&. 6hus, considering that the action for
reconveyance was filed on May (", "33", or appro-imately nine years later, it is evident that prescription had not yet
barred the action.
=rescinding therefrom, can Rafael Marquez Sr., as trustee of his wife<s share, validly donate this portion to the
respondentsA Bbviously, he cannot, as e-pressly provided in 'rt. /(. of the 7ivil 7ode, thus'rt. /(.. 0uardians and
trustees cannot donate the property entrusted to them.Moreover, nobody can dispose of that which does not belong to
him.
?hether this donation was inofficious or not is another matter which is not within the province of this 7ourt to determine
inasmuch as it necessitates the production of evidence not before it.
Finally, while we rule in favor of petitioners, we cannot grant their plea for moral damages and attorney<s fees
29
since they
have not satisfactorily shown that they have suffered :mental anguish: as provided in 'rticle &&"3 and 'rticle &&35 of the
7ivil 7ode.