Tan Vs Ca
Tan Vs Ca
Tan Vs Ca
Now before us via this petition for review, petitioners insist on the
propriety of the trial courts order of dismissal, and reiterate, by way of
assignment of errors, the same grounds contained in their motion to
dismiss, to wit:
I.
which, under Article 1119 of the Civil Code, "shall not be available for
the purposes of possession."[22]
It thus becomes evident that the filing of private respondent's
complaint in 1993 - thirty five (35) years after TCT No. 53284 in the
name of Remigio Tan was registered and eighteen (18) years after the
issuance of TCT No. 117898 in the names of petitioners - was way
beyond the ten (10)-year time limit within which reconveyance of
property based on an implied trust should be instituted. Private
respondent's cause of action, assuming that it exists, has clearly
prescribed.
Finally, private respondent is guilty of laches. In negating the
onset of laches, respondent CA held: