Case Digest (G.R. No. 138945)
Facts:
Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation and Sta. Lucia Realty and Development Corporation v. Heirs of Raymundo Baba, G.R. No. 138945, August 19, 2003, the Supreme Court First Division, Ynares‑Santiago, J., writing for the Court.
The property in dispute is Lot No. 3537, a conjugal lot of spouses Raymundo Baba and Dorotea Inot, originally under Original Certificate of Title No. RO‑0820 in the name of Dorotea. After Raymundo’s death in 1947, an extrajudicial settlement among some heirs was executed on December 8, 1966, whereby one‑half of the 6,326 sq. m. lot was adjudicated to Dorotea and the other half to Victoriano and Gregorio Baba. On December 28, 1966, Dorotea, Victoriano and Gregorio purportedly sold Lot No. 3537 to Felix Gochan and Sons Realty Corporation (Gochan Realty) for P2,346.70; OCT No. RO‑0820 was cancelled and Transfer Certificate of Title No. T‑1842 issued in favor of Gochan Realty on February 23, 1968. In 1995 Gochan Realty entered a joint venture with Sta. Lucia Realty and Development Corporation to develop the lot.
On June 13, 1996, respondents — Bestra, Maricel, Crecencia, Antonio and Petronila Baba (the Heirs of Raymundo Baba), represented by attorney‑in‑fact Virginia Sumalinog — filed Civil Case No. 4494‑L in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lapu‑Lapu City, Branch 54, for quieting of title and reconveyance with damages. They alleged they are among the seven children of Dorotea and Raymundo, that the extrajudicial settlement and deed of sale were fraudulently executed without their consent and thus deprived them of their hereditary shares, and that they only learned of those transactions about a year before filing suit.
In its answer, Gochan Realty challenged respondents’ capacity to sue and pleaded estoppel, laches and prescription, asserting the action was filed more than 28 years after issuance of title and that it was a purchaser in good faith. Sta. Lucia was declared in default for failure to answer.
On May 3, 1997, the RTC (Judge Rumoldo R. Fernandez) dismissed the complaint on the grounds of prescription and laches, characterizing the action as one to enforce an implied or constructive trust based on fraud which prescribes in ten years from issuance of title. Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA‑G.R. CV No. 57080). The Court of Appeals (pen. Associate Justice Eugenio J. Labitoria, concurred) reversed on February 12, 1999, holding that while the action was grounded on fraud and an implied trust, because respondents were in possession the action could not be barred by prescription and laches; the CA reinstated the complaint and remanded for trial. Gochan Realty’s motion for reconsideration was denied on May 25, 1999.
Gochan ...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Is respondents’ complaint for quieting of title and reconveyance barred by prescription?
- Is respondents’ complaint barred by lac...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)