133. Estrella Tiongco Yared vs Jose B. Tiongco, (G.R. No.

161360 October 19, 2011

FACTS:
Matilde, Jose, Vicente, Felipe are the HEIRS OF MARIA LUIS DE TIONGCO. Although the
HEIRS OF MARIA LUIS DE TIONGCO have all died, there were survived by their children and
descendants. Among them are the legitimate children of Jose, Estrella Tiongco Yared and Carmelo
Tiongco, father of the respondent Jose. In 1965, Estrella built a house on Lot 1404 and sustained
herself by collecting rentals from the tenants of Lots 3244 and 3246. In 1968, Estrella, as one of the
heirs of Jose, filed an adverse claim affecting all the rights, interest and participation of her deceased
father on the disputed lots, but the adverse claim was only annotated on the OCTs covering Lots 3244
and 1404. In 1983, the NEPHEW prohibited Estrella from collecting rentals from the tenants of Lots
3244 and 3246. The NEPHEW filed a suit for recovery of possession against several tenants of Lots
324 and 3246 wherein he obtained a judgment in his favour. The NEPHEW also filed a case for
unlawful detainer against Estrella as she was staying on Lot 1404. The RTC ruled in favour of the
NEPHEW.
The CA reversed and ruled in favour of Estrella. As such, the NEPHEW never took possession of
the properties. In 1988, when Estrella inquired at the Office of the RD, she discovered that, sometime
in 1974, the NEPHEW had already executed an Affidavit of Adjudication declaring that he is the only
surviving heir of the registered owners and adjudicating unto himself Lots 3244, 3246, and 1404. The
OCTs were cancelled and new TCTs were issued in respondent Jose’s name. Based on the records of
the RD, the NEPHEW sold Lots 3244 and 1404 to Catalino Torre. Lot 3246 was sold to Antonio
Doronila. Torre sold the Lots 3244 and 1404 to Doronila. Doronila sold back to Jose Lots 1404, 3244,
and 3246. In 1990, Estrella filed a complaint against the NEPHEW and Doronila. RTC ruled in favour
of Jose for prescription has set since the complaint was filed in 1990 or some 16 years after the
NEPHEW caused to be registered the affidavit of adjudication. The CA AFFIRMED.
ISSUE Who has a better right to the properties?
RULING The CA decision is reversed and set aside. The RD is ordered to restore the OCTs under
the name/s of the registered original owners.
HELD
Generally, an action for reconveyance can barred by prescription. An action for reconveyance based
on implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in 10 years from the issuance of the Torrens
title over the property. However, there is an exception to this rule: when the plaintiff is in possession
of the land to be reconveyed, prescription cannot be invoke in an action for reconveyance. The action
is imprescriptible so long as the land has not passed to an innocent buyer for value. This is based on
the theory that registration proceedings cannot be used as a shield for fraud or enriching a person at
the expense of another. In this case, Estrella’s possession was disturbed in 1983 when the NEPHEW
filed a case for recovery of possession. The RTC ruled in favour of Estrella. Estrella never lost
possession of the properties, as such, she is in a position to file the complaint to protect her rights and
clear whatever doubts had been cast on her title by the issuance of the TCTs in the NEPHEW’s name.
The circuitous sale transaction of the properties from the NEPHEW to Torre to Doronilla, and back
again to the NEPHEW were unusual. However, these successive transfers of title from one hand to
another could not cleanse the illegality of the NEPHEW’s act of adjudicating to himself all the
disputed properties so as to entitle him the protection of the law as a buyer in good faith. The
NEPHEW cannot claim lack of knowledge of the defects surrounding the cancellation of the OCTs
over the properties and benefit from his fraudulent actions. The subsequent sales will not cure the
nullity of the certificates of title obtained by the NEPHEW on the basis of the false and fraudulent
Affidavit of Adjudication.