G.R. No. 101028 - Tale vs. Court of Appeals

The petitioner, Feliciana Licayan Tale, is the daughter of the late Agustin Licayan (or Manlicayan), author of a certificate of title covering an agricultural land in Bukidnon.
The petitioner inherited part of this land—approximately 8.5 hectares out of a total of 15.5947 hectares—as evidenced by assorted tax declarations and receipts dating back to 1950.
The petitioner initiated the case by filing a complaint for reconveyance and damages on August 19, 1977 with the Court of First Instance of Bukidnon, seeking recovery of a piece of land.

Defendant Paterno G. Talisik, a World War II veteran, received from his father-in-law, Damiano Licayen Tale, a parcel of approximately 2.5 hectares during the war.
In 1971, defendant Talisik effected an inclusion of an additional 2.5 hectares of the petitioner’s land into his Free Patent No. 50711, thereby enlarging the area covered by his title (OCT No. P-5827) from 2.5 hectares to 5 hectares.
The additional 2.5 hectares in Talisik’s title allegedly originated from the petitioner’s inherited property, which had been previously covered by a free patent in the name of the petitioner’s father.

The Regional Trial Court (Branch 9, Malaybalay, Bukidnon) ruled on August 16, 1989 in favor of the petitioner by declaring her as the owner of the 2.5-hectare portion situated on the northern side of the respondent’s land.
The RTC ordered the defendant to execute a proper deed of conveyance and to survey and segregate the said portion for delivery to the petitioner.
The defendant appealed the RTC decision, and the Court of Appeals reversed the ruling on the ground that the petitioner’s action for reconveyance was barred by prescription (four-year period based on the issuance of the title).
The petitioner’s subsequent motion for reconsideration before the Court of Appeals was denied, prompting the filing of this petition for review.

Whether the action for reconveyance based on fraud is subject to a four-year prescriptive period (counting from the issuance of the certificate of title) as held by the Court of Appeals.
Whether, in this case involving an inclusion of land by the defendant, the proper prescriptive period is ten years as provided by Article 1144 of the Civil Code and the doctrine on implied or constructive trust.

Whether the disputed 2.5 hectares, included in the defendant’s title, rightfully belongs to the petitioner as part of her father’s originally titled property.
The extent to which the findings of the trial court regarding the boundaries and contiguous nature of the petitioner’s and defendant’s properties are supported by the evidence.