G.R. No. L-25375 - Reyes vs. Apostol

Anicia T. Reyes filed an action on May 19, 1965 in the Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
The complaint sought recovery of ownership and possession of a parcel of land located in barrio San Sebastian, Hagonoy, Bulacan; alternatively, the reconveyance of the property along with damages.

The complaint detailed a series of transactions involving the sale of the property:

On December 26, 1946, defendants allegedly conspired with Antonio de Pano to purchase the same parcel of land, evidenced by a document labeled "PAGBIBILIHANG PATULUYAN" (inst. No. 106, Folio No. 4, Libro IV, Serie de 1946 of the Notarial Register of Rafael T. Leon, Hagonoy, Bulacan).
On April 25, 1947, defendants declared the land in their names under Tax Declaration No. 9020 “to begin with the year 1948,” while simultaneously effecting the double cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 8164, which had previously been cancelled by Tax Declaration No. 8991 issued in favor of the plaintiff.

Up to the time of the complaint, defendants continued to declare the land under Tax Declaration No. 295, whose particulars (location, boundaries, kind, and value) corresponded with those on the plaintiff’s own tax declaration.
In 1947, the defendants not only declared the land for tax purposes but also took physical possession by erecting a house on the property.

Prior to September 22, 1947, defendants instituted registration proceedings in accordance with Act No. 496.
A decision favorable to the defendants was rendered on September 22, 1947, leading to:

The issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 0-39 on November 25, 1947.
Subsequent recognition of defendants’ ownership over the property through these registration proceedings.

The plaintiff asserts that she became aware of the second sale and the subsequent occupation of the land by the defendants in 1947.
Despite her prompt communication to the defendants to vacate the land upon learning of their occupation, the defendants refused to comply, alleging that:

The present action was initiated by the plaintiff nearly 18 to 20 years later, raising questions regarding the timely filing of the cause of action.

Defendants acted in bad faith by colluding with Antonio de Pano, thereby perpetrating a fraudulent transaction.
An "implied trust" was established between the parties, which the plaintiff claimed should justify the annulment of the registration proceedings.

These allegations, however, proved insufficient to establish extrinsic fraud that could warrant annulling the registration or the conveyance proceedings.

Whether, based on the entire factual background as pleaded, the plaintiff’s cause of action had been barred by the statute of limitations at the time the action was commenced on May 19, 1965.

Whether the significant lapse of time (approximately 18 to 20 years) from the defendants’ acquisition and registration of the property to the filing of the complaint negated the plaintiff’s right to recover or reconvey the land.

Whether the facts alleged in regard to extrinsic fraud and the “implied trust” were adequate to justify the annulment of the registration proceedings and the sale executed by Antonio de Pano.