FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.115925.August15,2003]

SPOUSESRICARDOPASCUALandCONSOLACIONSIOSON,petitioners,vs.COURTOFAPPEALSandREMEDIOSS.EUGENIOGINO,respondents.

DECISIONCARPIO,J.:

TheCase

ThisisapetitionforreviewoftheDecision[1]dated31January1994oftheCourtofAppealsorderingtheRegisterofDeedsofMetroManila,DistrictIII,toplaceTCTNo. (232252)1321 in thenameof respondentRemediosS.EugenioGino. TheDecisionordered theRegisterofDeeds tocancel thenamesofpetitionersRicardoPascualandConsolacionSioson(petitioners)inTCTNo.(232252)1321.TheDecisionalsodirectedpetitionerstopayrespondentmoralandexemplarydamagesandattorneysfees.

TheFacts

PetitionerConsolacionSioson(CONSOLACION)andrespondentRemediosS.EugenioGino(REMEDIOS)arethenieceandgranddaughter,respectively,ofthe late Canuto Sioson (CANUTO). CANUTO and 11 other individuals, including his sister Catalina Sioson (CATALINA) and his brother Victoriano Sioson(VICTORIANO),werecoownersofaparceloflandinTanza,Navotas,MetroManila.Theproperty,knownasLot2ofPlanPsu13245,hadanareaof9,347squaremetersandwascoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.4207issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofRizal.CATALINA,CANUTO,andVICTORIANOeachownedanaliquot10/70shareor1,335squaremetersofLot2.[2]

On20November1951,CANUTOhadLot2surveyedandsubdividedintoeightlots(LotNos.2Ato2H)throughSubdivisionPlanPsd34713whichtheDirectorofLandsapprovedon30May1952.LotNo.2A,withanareaof670squaremeters,andLotNo.2E,withanareaof2,000squaremeters,wereplacedunderCANUTOsname.Threeotherindividualstooktheremaininglots.[3]

On26September1956,CANUTOandCONSOLACIONexecutedaKasulatanngBilihangTuluyan[4](KASULATAN).UndertheKASULATAN,CANUTOsold

his10/70shareinLot2infavorofCONSOLACIONforP2,250.00.TheKASULATAN,notarizedbyNotaryPublicJoseT.delosSantosofNavotas,provides:

Naako,CANUTOSIOSON,mamamayangPilipino,maykatampatanggulang,kasalkayRaymundaSanDiego,atnaninirahansaTanza,Navotas,Rizal,sabisaatpamamagitanngkasulatangitoaynagpapatunayatnagpapatibay:

1.Naakoanglubosattunaynamayaring10/70bahaginghindihati(10/70porcionproindiviso)ngisanglagaynalupa(LoteNo.2,PlanoPsu13245),nanasasanayonngTanza,MunicipiongNavotas,ProvinciangRizal,atangdescripcionopagkakakilanlanngnasabingloteaynakasaadsaCertificadoOriginal,deTituloNo.4207ngOficinangRegistradordeTitulosngRizal,gayangsumusunod:

xxxx

2.NadahilatalangalangsahalagangDalawangLiboDalawangDaanatLimampungPiso(P2,250.00),salapingPilipino,nasaakinayibinayadniCONSOLACIONSIOSON,kasalkayRicardoS.Pascual,maysapatnagulang,mamamayangPilipino,atnaninirahansaDampalit,Malabon,Rizalatangpagkakatanggapngnasabinghalagaayakinginaaminatpinatutunayan,ayakingipinagbili,inilipatatisinalin,sapamamagitanngbilihangtuluyanatwalangpasubaliafavor[sic]sanasabingsiCONSOLACIONSIOSON,sakanyangtagapagmanaatmapaglilipatananglahatngakingtitulo,karapatanatkapartinabinubuong10/70bahaginghindihati(10/70porcionproindiviso)nglotengdescritoortinutukoysaitaasnito.(Emphasissupplied)

CONSOLACION immediately tookpossessionofLotNos.2Aand2E.She laterdeclared the land for taxationpurposesandpaid thecorresponding realestatetaxes.[5]

On 23 October 1968, the surviving children of CANUTO, namely, Felicidad and Beatriz, executed a joint affidavit[6] (JOINT AFFIDAVIT) affirming theKASULATANinfavorofCONSOLACION.TheyalsoattestedthatthelotstheirfatherhadsoldtoCONSOLACIONwereLotNos.2Aand2EofSubdivisionPlanPsd34713.TheJOINTAFFIDAVITreads:

KAMINGsinaFELICIDADSIOSONatBEATRIZSIOSON,pawangmgaPilipino,kapuwamaysapatnagulangatnaninirahan,angunasaTanza,NavotasatangikalawasaConcepcion,Malabon,lalawiganngRizal,sailalimngisangganapnapanunumpaalinsunodsabatas,aymalayangnagsasalaysayngmgasumusunod:

NakamiangmgabuhaynaanaknanaiwanniCANUTOSIOSONnanagmamayaring10/70bahaginghindihati(10/70porcionproindiviso)ngisanglagaynalupa(LoteNo.2,planoPsu13245),nanasaNayonngTanza,Navotas,Rizal,atangmgapalatandaannitoaynasasaadsaCertificadoOriginaldeTituloNo.4207ngTanggapanngRegistradordeTitulosngRizal

Nasalubosnamingkaalaman,ayipinagbilingamingAmanasiCanutoSiosonangkaniyangbuongbahagina10/70sanasabingLoteNo.2,kayCONSOLACIONSIOSON,maybahayniRicardoS.Pascual,natagaDampalit,Malabon,Rizal,sahalagangP2,250.00,salapingpilipino,noongika16[sic]ngSeptiembre,1956,sapamamagitanngisangKASULATANNGBILIHANGTULUYANnapinagtibaysaharapngNotarioPublicoJoseT.delosSantosnangpechangnabanggit,saNavotas,Rizal,(Doc.No.194,PageNo.84BookNo.IVSeriesof1956)

NaangnasabinglupanaipinagbilingamingAmakayConsolacionSiosonniPascual,aynakikilalangayongmgaLoteNo.2AatLote2EngPlanodeSubdivisionPsd34713napinagtibayngAssistantDirectorofLandsnoongMayo30,1952

NaamingngayongpinatitibayanangpagkapagbilingbahagingamingAmakayConsolacionSiosonniPascualngngayoynakikilalangLoteNo.2AatLoteNo.2EngPlanodeSubdivisionPsd34713.(Emphasissupplied)

On28October1968,CONSOLACIONregistered theKASULATANand theJOINTAFFIDAVITwith theOfficeof theRegisterofDeedsofRizal (RegisterofDeeds).Basedonthesedocuments,theRegisterofDeedsissuedtoCONSOLACIONTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321coveringLotNos.2Aand2EofSubdivisionPlanPsd34713withatotalareaof2,670squaremeters.

On4February1988,REMEDIOSfiledacomplaintagainstCONSOLACIONandherspouseRicardoPascualintheRegionalTrialCourtofMalabon,Branch165,forAnnulmentorCancellationofTransferCertificate[ofTitle]andDamages.REMEDIOSclaimedthatsheistheownerofLotNos.2Aand2EbecauseCATALINAdevisedtheselotstoherinCATALINAslastwillandtestament[7](LASTWILL)dated29May1964.REMEDIOSaddedthatCONSOLACIONobtainedtitletotheselotsthroughfraudulentmeanssincetheareacoveredbyTCT(232252)1321istwicethesizeofCANUTOsshareinLot2.REMEDIOSprayedforthecancellationofCONSOLACIONstitle,theissuanceofanothertitleinhername,andthepaymenttoherofdamages.

Petitionerssoughttodismissthecomplaintonthegroundofprescription.Petitionersclaimedthatthebasisoftheactionisfraud,andREMEDIOSshouldhavefiledtheactionwithinfouryearsfromtheregistrationofCONSOLACIONstitleon28October1968andnotsome19yearslateron4February1988.REMEDIOSopposedthemotion,claimingthatshebecameawareofCONSOLACIONsadversetitleonlyinFebruary1987.CONSOLACIONmaintainedthatshehadtimelyfiledhercomplaintwithinthefouryearprescriptiveon4February1988.

In its order of 28April 1988, the trial court denied petitionersmotion to dismiss. The trial court held that the reckoning of the prescriptive period for filingREMEDIOS complaint is evidentiary in nature andmust await the presentation of the parties evidence during the trial. During the pretrial stage,REMEDIOSclarifiedthatshewasclaimingonlyCATALINAs10/70shareinLot2,or1,335squaremeters,whichconstituteoftheareaofLotNos.2Aand2E.[8]Thetrialofthecasethenensued.

TheRulingoftheTrialCourt

On26November1990,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentdismissingthecaseandorderingREMEDIOStopaypetitionersP10,000asattorneysfeesandthecostof suit. The trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is based on fraud, covered by the fouryear prescriptive period. The trial court also held thatREMEDIOSknewofpetitionersadversetitleon19November1982whenREMEDIOStestifiedagainstpetitionersinanejectmentsuitpetitionershadfiledagainsttheirtenantsinLotNos.2Aand2E.Thus,thecomplaintofREMEDIOShadalreadyprescribedwhenshefilediton4February1988.

ThetrialcourtfurtherruledthatREMEDIOShasnorightofactionagainstpetitionersbecauseCATALINAsLASTWILLfromwhichREMEDIOSclaimstoderivehertitlehasnotbeenadmittedtoprobate.UnderArticle838oftheCivilCode,nowillpassesrealorpersonalpropertyunlessitisallowedinprobateinaccordancewiththeRulesofCourt.Thedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsdecisionprovides:

WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofthedefendantsandagainstplaintiff,ordering:

1.Thedismissalofthiscase

2.TheplaintifftopaythedefendantsthesumofTenThousand(P10,000.00)Pesosasandforattorneysfeesand

3.Theplaintifftopaythecostsofsuit.[9]

REMEDIOSappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.

TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals

On31January1994,theCourtofAppealsrenderedjudgmentreversingthedecisionofthetrialcourt.TheappellatecourtheldthatwhatREMEDIOSfiledwasasuittoenforceanimpliedtrustallegedlycreatedinherfavorwhenCONSOLACIONfraudulentlyregisteredhertitleoverLotNos.2Aand2E.Consequently,theprescriptiveperiodforfilingthecomplaintistenyears,notfour.TheCourtofAppealscountedthistenyearperiodfrom19November1982.Thus,whenREMEDIOSfiledhercomplainton4February1988,thetenyearprescriptiveperiodhadnotyetexpired.

TheappellatecourtheldthatCATALINAsunprobatedLASTWILLdoesnotprecludeREMEDIOSfromseekingreconveyanceofLotNos.2Aand2EastheLASTWILLmaysubsequentlybeadmittedtoprobate.Thedispositiveportionoftheappellatecourtsrulingprovides:

WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheRegistryofDeedsofRizalorMetroManila,DistrictIII,isorderedtoplaceTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321underthenameofRemediosS.EugenioGinoasexecutorofthewillofCatalinaSiosonandcancelthenamesoftheSpousesRicardoPascualandConsolacionSiosoninscribedoversaidtitleasownersofthecoveredlot.DefendantsappelleesspousesRicardoPascualandConsolacionSiosonareorderedtopayplaintiffappellantRemediosS.EugenioGinomoraldamagesintheamountofP50,000.00,exemplarydamagesofP20,000[.00]andattorneysfeesofP20,000.00andP500.00perappearance.[10]

Petitionerssoughtreconsiderationoftheruling.However,theCourtofAppealsdeniedtheirmotioninitsorderdated15June1994.Hence,thispetition.

TheIssues

Petitionersallegethefollowingassignmentoferrors:I.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTSCAUSEOFACTIONISNOTBARREDBYPRESCRIPTIONWHICH

FINDINGISMANIFESTLYCONTRARYTOLAWANDTHEAPPLICABLEDECISIONSOFTHISHONORABLECOURT.

II.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTHOLDINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTDOESNOTHAVEANYTITLEANDHASUTTERLYFAILEDTOPROVE ANY TITLE TO THE LOTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND IN ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OFPETITIONERS.

III.THECOURTOFAPPEALSACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONANDINGROSSVIOLATIONOF

THE RULES OF COURT IN ORDERING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. (232252) 1321 TO BEPLACED IN THE NAME OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT, BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS LIMITED ONLY TO ONEHALF (1/2)PORTIONOFTHEPROPERTY,ANDTHEOTHERHALFTHEREOFUNQUESTIONABLYBELONGSTOPETITIONERS.

IV.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATPETITIONERSACTEDFRAUDULENTLYANDINBADFAITHINSECURINGTHEIRCERTIFICATEOFTITLETOTHEPROPERTYINVOLVEDINTHISCASE,ANDINORDERINGPETITIONERSTOPAYPRIVATERESPONDENTSMORALDAMAGES,EXEMPLARYDAMAGESANDATTORNEYSFEES.[11]

Thepivotalquestionsare:(1)whetherprescriptionbarstheactionfiledbyREMEDIOS,and(2)whetherREMEDIOSisarealpartyininterest.

TheRulingoftheCourt

Thepetitionhasmerit.

TheActionisBarredbyPrescription

The trial court held that the action filed byREMEDIOS is one based on fraud. REMEDIOS action seeks to recover real property that petitioners allegedlyacquiredthroughfraud.Consequently,thetrialcourtheldthattheactionprescribesinfouryearscountedfromREMEDIOSactualdiscoveryofpetitionersadversetitle.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatREMEDIOSbelatedlyfiledhersuiton4February1988becausesheactuallyknewofpetitionersadversetitlesince19November1982.

Ontheotherhand,theCourtofAppealsheldthatwhatREMEDIOSfiledwasasuittoenforceanimpliedtrust.REMEDIOShadtenyearscountedfromactualnoticeofthebreachoftrust,thatis,theassertionofadversetitle,withinwhichtobringheraction.TheappellatecourtheldthatREMEDIOSseasonablyfiledhercomplainton4February1988becausesheallegedlydiscoveredpetitionersadversetitleonlyon19November1982.

WhatREMEDIOSfiledwasanactiontoenforceanimpliedtrustbutthesameisalreadybarredbyprescription.

PrescriptivePeriodis10YearsCountedFromRegistrationofAdverseTitle

Thefouryearprescriptiveperiodrelieduponbythetrialcourtappliesonlyifthefrauddoesnotgiverisetoanimpliedtrust,andtheactionistoannulavoidablecontractunderArticle1390[12]oftheCivilCode.Insuchacase,thefouryearprescriptiveperiodunderArticle1391[13]beginstorunfromthetimeofdiscoveryofthemistake,violence,intimidation,undueinfluenceorfraud.

In the present case,REMEDIOS does not seek to annul theKASULATAN. REMEDIOS does not assail the KASULATAN as a voidable contract. In fact,REMEDIOSadmits thevalidityof thesaleof1,335squaremetersof landunder theKASULATAN.However,REMEDIOSalleges that theexcessareaof1,335

meters is not part of the sale under the KASULATAN. REMEDIOS seeks the removal of this excess area from TCT No. (232252) 1321 that was issued toCONSOLACION.Consequently,REMEDIOSactionisforAnnulmentorCancellationofTransferCertificate[ofTitle]andDamages.[14]

REMEDIOS action is basedonan implied trust underArticle 1456 since she claims that the inclusionof theadditional 1,335 squaremeters inTCT No.(232252)1321waswithoutbasis.Ineffect,REMEDIOSassertsthatCONSOLACIONacquiredtheadditional1,335squaremetersthroughmistakeorfraudandthusCONSOLACIONshouldbeconsideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitoftherightfulowneroftheproperty.Clearly,theapplicableprescriptiveperiodistenyearsunderArticle1144andnotfouryearsunderArticles1389and1391.

Itisnowwellsettledthattheprescriptiveperiodtorecoverpropertyobtainedbyfraudormistake,givingrisetoanimpliedtrustunderArticle1456[15]oftheCivilCode,istenyearspursuanttoArticle1144.[16]Thistenyearprescriptiveperiodbeginstorunfromthedatetheadversepartyrepudiatestheimpliedtrust,whichrepudiationtakesplacewhentheadversepartyregisterstheland.[17]

REMEDIOSfiledhercomplainton4February1988ormorethan19yearsafterCONSOLACIONregisteredhertitleoverLotNos.2Aand2Eon28October1968.Unquestionably,REMEDIOSfiledthecomplaintlatethuswarrantingitsdismissal.AstheCourtrecentlydeclaredinSpousesAlfredov.SpousesBorras,[18]

FollowingCaro,[19]wehaveconsistentlyheldthatanactionforreconveyancebasedonanimpliedtrustprescribesintenyears.Wewentfurtherbyspecifyingthereferencepointofthetenyearprescriptiveperiodasthedateoftheregistrationofthedeedortheissuanceofthetitle.

TheCourtofAppealsReckoningofPrescriptivePeriodfromActualNoticeofAdverseTitleNotJustified

InholdingthattheactionfiledbyREMEDIOShasnotprescribed,theCourtofAppealsinvokedthisCourtsrulinginAdillev.CourtofAppeals.[20]InAdille,theCourtreckonedthetenyearprescriptiveperiodforenforcingimpliedtrustsnotfromregistrationoftheadversetitlebutfromactualnoticeoftheadversetitlebythecestuiquetrust.However,theCourt,injustifyingitsdeviationfromthegeneralrule,explained:

[W]hileactionstoenforceaconstructivetrustprescribes(sic)intenyears,reckonedfromthedateoftheregistrationoftheproperty,wexxxarenotpreparedtocounttheperiodfromsuchdateinthiscase.WenotethepetitionerssubrosaeffortstogetholdofthepropertyexclusivelyforhimselfbeginningwithhisfraudulentmisrepresentationinhisunilateralaffidavitofextrajudicialsettlementthatheistheonlyheirandchildofhismotherFeliza[]withtheconsequencethathewasabletosecuretitleinhisnamealso.(Emphasissupplied)

Suchcommissionofspecificfraudulentconductisabsentinthepresentcase.OtherthanassertingthatpetitionersareguiltyoffraudbecausetheysecuredtitletoLotNos.2Aand2EwithanareatwicebiggerthanwhatCANUTOallegedlysoldtoCONSOLACION,REMEDIOSdidnotpresentanyotherproofofpetitionersfraudulentconductakintoAdille.

CONSOLACIONobtainedtitletoLotNos.2Aand2EthroughtheKASULATANexecutedbyCANUTOandtheJOINTAFFIDAVITexecutedbyhissurvivingchildren,oneofwhom,Felicidad,isthemotherofREMEDIOS.TheKASULATANreferredtothesaleofCANUTOs10/70shareinLot2withoutspecifyingthearea

ofthelotsold.TheJOINTAFFIDAVITreferredtothePlanodeSubdivisionPsd34713withoutalsospecifyingtheareaofthelotsold.However,SubdivisionPlanPsd34713,ascertifiedby theAssistantDirectorofLandson30May1952,showedanareaof2,670squaremeters in thenameofCANUTO.Basedon thesedocuments,theRegisterofDeedsissuedTCTNo.(232252)1321toCONSOLACIONcoveringanareaof2,670squaremeters.

REMEDIOSdoesnotassailtheKASULATANortheJOINTAFFIDAVITasfictitiousorforged.REMEDIOSevenadmitstheauthenticityofSubdivisionPlanPsd34713ascertifiedby theAssistantDirectorofLands.[21] Moreover,REMEDIOShasnotcontestedpetitionersclaim thatCANUTOdoubledhisshare inLot2byacquiringVICTORIANOsshare.[22]

Plainly,theincreaseintheareasoldfrom1,335squaremetersto2,670squaremetersisaglaringmistake.Thereis,however,noproofwhatsoeverthatthisincreaseinareawastheresultoffraud.Allegationsoffraudinactionstoenforceimpliedtrustsmustbeprovedbyclearandconvincingevidence.[23]Adille,whichisanchoredonfraud,[24]cannotapplytothepresentcase.

Atanyrate,evenifweapplyAdilletothiscase,prescriptionstillbarsREMEDIOScomplaint.AsexecutrixofCATALINAsLASTWILL,REMEDIOSsubmittedtothethenCourtofFirstInstanceofCaloocaninSpecialProceedingsCaseNo.C208theinventoryofallthepropertycomprisingCATALINAsestate,whichincludedLotNos.2Aand2E. Inamotiondated7November1977,CONSOLACIONsought theexclusionof these lots fromthe inventory, invokingher titleover them.REMEDIOSwas served a copy of themotion on 8 November 1977 against which she filed an opposition. Nevertheless, the trial court overruled REMEDIOSobjection. In itsorderof3January1978, the trial courtgrantedCONSOLACIONsmotionandordered theexclusionofLotNos.2Aand2E from theestateofCATALINA.REMEDIOSdidnotappealfromthisruling.

REMEDIOSthushadactualnoticeofpetitionersadversetitleon8November1977.Evenif,forthesakeofargument,thetenyearprescriptiveperiodbeginstorunuponactualnoticeof theadverse title,stillREMEDIOS right to file thissuithasprescribed.REMEDIOShaduntil11November1987withinwhich to filehercomplaint.Whenshedidsoon4February1988,theprescriptiveperiodhadalreadylapsed.

RespondentisNotaRealPartyinInterest

NotonlydoesprescriptionbarREMEDIOScomplaint.REMEDIOSisalsonotarealpartyininterestwhocanfilethecomplaint,asthetrialcourtcorrectlyruled.The1997RulesofCivilProcedurerequirethateveryactionmustbeprosecutedordefendedinthenameoftherealpartyininterestwhoisthepartywhostands

tobenefitorsufferfromthejudgmentinthesuit.[25]Ifonewhoisnotarealpartyininterestbringstheaction,thesuitisdismissibleforlackofcauseofaction.[26]

REMEDIOSanchoredher claimoverLotNos. 2Aand2E (or over its onehalf portion)on thedeviseof these lots toherunderCATALINAsLASTWILL.However,thetrialcourtfoundthattheprobatecourtdidnotissueanyorderadmittingtheLASTWILLtoprobate.REMEDIOSdoesnotcontestthisfinding.Indeed,duringthetrial,REMEDIOSadmittedthatSpecialProceedingsCaseNo.C208isstillpending.[27]

Article838oftheCivilCodestatesthat[N]owillshallpasseitherrealorpersonalpropertyunlessitisprovedandallowedinaccordancewiththeRulesofCourt.ThisCourthasinterpretedthisprovisiontomean,untiladmittedtoprobate,[awill]hasnoeffectwhateverandnorightcanbeclaimedthereunder.[28]REMEDIOSanchorsherrightinfilingthissuitonherbeingadeviseeofCATALINAsLASTWILL.However,sincetheprobatecourthasnotadmittedCATALINAsLASTWILL,REMEDIOShasnotacquiredanyrightundertheLASTWILL.REMEDIOSisthuswithoutanycauseofactioneithertoseekreconveyanceofLotNos.2Aand2Eortoenforceanimpliedtrustovertheselots.

Theappellate court tried to go around this deficiency by ordering the reconveyance of LotNos. 2A and 2E toREMEDIOS in her capacity as executrix ofCATALINAsLASTWILL. This is inappropriate becauseREMEDIOSsuedpetitioners not in such capacity but as the allegedowner of the disputed lots. Thus,REMEDIOSallegedinhercomplaint:

3.TheplaintiffisanieceandcompulsoryheirofthelateCATALINASIOSONwhodiedsingleandwithoutanychildofherownandwho,duringherlifetime,wastheownerofthosetwo(2)parcelsoflandlocatedatTanza,Navotas,Rizal(nowMetroManila),formerlycoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.4207oftheRegistryofDeedsfortheProvinceofRizal,xxx.

4.Theplaintiff,asidefrombeingthecompulsoryheirofthedeceasedCATALINASIOSON,hassoleandexclusiveclaimofownershipovertheabovementionedtwo(2)parcelsoflandbyvirtueofawillorHulingHabilinatPagpapasiyaexecutedbyCatalinaSiosononMay19,1964beforeNotaryPublicEfrenY.AngelesatNavotas,Rizal,inwhichdocumentthedeceasedCatalinaSiosonspecificallyandexclusivelybequeathedtotheplaintifftheabovementionedLots2Aand2EofPsd34713approvedbytheBureauofLandsonMay30,1952.CopyoftheHulingHabilinatPagpapasiyaconsistingoffour(4)pagesisheretoattachedandformsanintegralparthereofasAnnexA

5.SometimeonoraboutFebruary,1987,plaintiffdiscoveredthattheabovementionedLots2Aand2EofsubdivisionplanPsd34713arenowregisteredortitledinthenameofthedefendantsunderTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321oftheRegistryofDeedsofRizal,nowMetroManilaDistrictIII.CopyofthetitleisheretoattachedandformsanintegralparthereofasAnnexB

6.Uponfurtherinquiryandinvestigation,plaintiffdiscoveredthatthedefendantswereabletoobtaintitleintheirnameofthesaidparcelsoflandbyvirtueofaKasulatanngBilihangTuluyanallegedlyexecutedbyCanutoSiosononSeptember26,1956beforeNotaryPublicJose[T.]delosSantosofNavotas,MetroManila.CopyofthesaiddocumentisheretoattachedandformsanintegralparthereofasAnnexC

7.TheplaintiffalsodiscoveredthatalthoughxxxtheoriginalsaledidnotspecifytheparcelsoflandsoldbyCanutoSioson,thedefendantssubmittedanallegedAffidavitexecutedbyFelicidadSiosonandBeatrizSiosonidentifyingthelotssoldbyCanutoSiosontothedefendantsasLots2Aand2EofsubdivisionplanPsd34713.CopyoftheAffidavitdatedOctober3,1968onthebasisofwhichthepresentTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321wasissuedtothedefendantsisheretoattachedandformsanintegralparthereofasAnnexD

8.ThedefendantsareclearlyguiltyoffraudinpresentingtheaforementionedAffidavit(AnnexD)totheRegisterofDeedsasthebasisoftheirclaimtoLots2Aand2EinviewofthefactthattheparcelssoldtothembyCanutoSioson,assumingtherewassuchasale,weredifferentparcelsofland,Lots2Aand2EbeingthepropertiesofthelateCatalinaSiosonwhobequeathedthesametotheplaintiff.

xxxx

12.Becauseofthedefendantsfraudulentactuationsonthismatter,plaintiffsufferedandcontinious[sic]tosuffermoraldamagesarisingfromanxiety,shockandwoundedfeelings.Defendantsshouldalsobeassessedexemplarydamagesbywayofalessontodeterthemfromagaincommittingthefraudulentacts,oractsofsimilarnature,byvirtueofwhichtheywereabletoobtaintitletotheparcelsoflandinvolvedinthiscasexxx.[29](Emphasissupplied)

Indeed,allthroughouttheproceedingsbelowandeveninherCommenttothispetition,REMEDIOScontinuedtopursueherclaimastheallegedownerofonehalfofthedisputedlots.

OtherMattersRaisedinthePetition

TheCourtdeemsitunnecessarytopassupontheothererrorspetitionersassignedconcerningtheawardofdamagesandattorneysfeestoREMEDIOS.SuchawardassumesthatREMEDIOSisarealpartyininterestandthatshetimelyfiledhercomplaint.Asearliershown,thisisnotthecase.

WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetition.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdated31January1994anditsResolutiondated15June1994areSETASIDE.ThecomplaintfiledbyrespondentRemediosEugenioGino,dated2February1988isDISMISSED.

SOORDERED.Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Vitug,YnaresSantiagoandAzcuna,JJ.,concur.

[1]PennedbyJusticeCoronaIbaySomera,withJusticesNathanaelP.DePano,Jr.,andAsaaliS.Isnaniconcurring.

[2]OCTNo.4207indicatesthesharingofthecoownersasfollows:

SimeonSioson10/70

VictorianoSioson10/70

CatalinaSioson10/70

FerminaSioson10/70

CanutoSioson10/70

CalixtoSioson5/70

FelipeSioson5/70

MarcianaGabriel2/70

IsabeloGabriel2/70

MargaritoGabriel2/70

SusanaGabriel2/70

EmilioGabriel2/70[3]SubdivisionPlanPsd34713Lot2subdividedtheremainingportionofLot2asfollows:

FerminaSiosonLot2D,670sq.meters

Lot2H,2003sq.meters

CalixtoSiosonLot2F,500sq.meters

EstebanSiosonLot2G,2,499sq.meters

Lot2C,837sq.meters

[4]Exhibit7forPetitioners.[5]Exhibit9forPetitioners.

[6]Exhibit8forPetitioners.[7]HulingHabilinatPagpapasiya,ExhibitAforRespondent.

[8]Records,p.70.

[9]Rollo,p.71.[10]Ibid.,p.45.

[11]Ibid.,p.11.[12]Article1390oftheCivilCodeprovides:Thefollowingcontractsarevoidableorannullable,eventhoughtheremayhavebeennodamagetothecontractingparties:

(1)xxx

(2)Thosewheretheconsentisvitiatedbymistake,violence,intimidation,undueinfluenceorfraud.

xxx.

[13]Article1391oftheCivilCodeprovides:Theactionforannulmentshallbebroughtwithinfouryears.Thisperiodshallbegin:xxxIncaseofmistakeorfraud,fromthetimeofthediscoveryofthesame.

[14]Records,p.1.

[15]Article1456oftheCivilCodeprovides:Ifpropertyisacquiredthroughmistakeorfraud,thepersonobtainingitis,byforceoflaw,consideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitofthepersonfromwhomthepropertycomes.

[16]Article1144oftheCivilCodeprovides:Thefollowingactionsmustbebroughtwithintenyearsfromthetimetherightofactionaccrues:

(1)xxx

(2)Uponanobligationcreatedbylaw

(3)xxx.

[17]SpousesAlfredov.SpousesBorras,G.R.No.144225,17June2003Vda.deDelgadov.CourtofAppeals,416Phil.263(2001)VillanuevaMijaresv.CourtofAppeals,386Phil.555(2000)Davidv.Malay,376Phil.825(1999)HeirsofJoaquinTevesv.CourtofAppeals,375Phil.96(1999)Lebrillav. IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.RNo.72623,18December1989,180SCRA188Villagonzalov.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.RNo.L71110,22November1988,167SCRA535Carantesv.CourtofAppeals,G.RNo.L33360,25April1977,76SCRA514.

[18]G.R.No.144225,17June2003.

[19]Carov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.76148,20December1989,180SCRA401.

[20]G.R.No.L44546,29January1988,157SCRA455.

[21]Rollo,pp.169170.

[22]Rollo,pp.9,20.[23]Jaramilv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L31858,31August1977,78SCRA420.

[24]Samontev.CourtofAppeals,413Phil.487(2001).[25]Rule3,Sec.2.

[26]Sustiguerv.Tamayo,G.RNo.29341,21August1989,176SCRA579.

[27]TSN,17March1989,p.15(RemediosEugenioGino).[28]Caizav.CourtofAppeals,G.RNo.110427,24February1997,68SCRA640.

[29]Records,pp.13.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/feb1997/110427.htm