Juliana Caragay-Layno, v. Hon.

CA and Salvador Estrada as Administrator of the deceased Mariano de Vera

GR No. L-52064 | December 26, 1984 | Melencio-Herrera
Facts: Juliana and Mariano were first cousins, both orphans who lived with their aunt.
OCT 63 was issued in the name of Mariano in 1947. He died in 1951. Administrator filed for an Inventory of all properties
of the deceased including land in Calasiao, Pangasinan containing 5417m 2.
But OCT says 8,752m2 and Inventory says 5,417m2 so administrator went to the Disputed Property and found that the NW
portion, 3,732m2 was occupied by Juliana and H, who refused to vacate, claiming that the land belonged to them and,
before them, to Juliana's father Juan Caragay.
Administrator instituted suit for the recovery of possession of the Disputed Portion against Juliana.
Juliana Answer: the Disputed Portion had been fraudulently or mistakenly included in OCT 63, so that an implied or
constructive trust existed in her favor. CC for reconveyance of property in the sense that title be issued in her favor.
CFI: ordered Juliana to vacate the disputed portion (action prescribed bec. reg 1947, answer only in 1967; >10 yrs)
CA: affirmed CFI in toto
Issue: WoN Juliana's action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust has prescribed
Held: No. Illiterate Juliana claimed she was defrauded by her older cousin whom she regarded as a father. He borrowed
from her the Tax Declaration of her land purportedly to be used as collateral for his loan and sugar quota application; was
made to sign docs; she discovered the fraudulent inclusion of the Disputed Portion in OCT No. 63 only in 1966 when
Administrator so informed her and sought to eject them.
Tax declarations since 1921 and realty taxes religiously paid from 1938-1972. Tacking previous possession of father +
Juliana = OCENCO for 45 years until possession was disturbed in 1966 when Administrator informed Juliana that the
Disputed Portion was registered in Mariano's name.
For 20 yrs from the date of registration of OCT in 1947 up to 1967 when this recovery of possession was instituted, neither
the deceased nor his successors-in-interest, had taken steps to possess or lay adverse claim to the Disputed Portion.
They are guilty of laches.
EXC to doctrine of indefeasibility of title: mere possession of OCT/TCT is not conclusive as to the holder's true ownership
of ALL property described as he does not become owner of the land illegally included. LRC no jdxn to decree a lot to
persons who have never asserted any right or ownership over it.
Juliana, whose property had been wrongfully registered in the name of another, but which had not yet passed into the
hands of third parties, can properly seek its reconveyance.
Prescription cannot be invoked against Juliana bec as lawful possessor and owner of the Disputed Portion, her cause of
action for reconveyance which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to the property, falls within settled jurisprudence that an action
to quiet title to property in one's possession is imprescriptible. Her undisturbed possession over a period of 52 yrs gave
her a continuing right to seek the aid of a Court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and
the effect on her own title.
Besides, Juliana's right to quiet title, to seek reconveyance, and to annul OCT. No. 63 accrued only in 1966 when she was
made aware of a claim adverse to her own. It was only then that the statutory period of prescription may be said to have
commenced to run against her,
CA reversed and set aside.