Close Reader

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 409

Information | Reference

Case Title:
SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and
CONSOLACION SIOSON, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS and VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 105
REMEDIOS S. EUGENIO-GINO,
Pascual vs. Court of Appeals
respondents.
Citation: 409 SCRA 105 *

More... G.R. No. 115925. August 15, 2003.

SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and CONSOLACION

Search Result SIOSON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and
REMEDIOS S. EUGENIO-GINO, respondents.

Civil Law; Trusts; Implied Trust; Prescription; The ten-year

prescriptive period begins to run from the date the adverse party
repudiates the implied trust.·It is now well-settled that the
prescriptive period to recover property obtained by fraud or
mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under Article 1456 of the
Civil Code, is ten years pursuant to Article 1144. This ten-year
prescriptive period begins to run from the date the adverse party
repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation takes place
when the adverse party registers the land.
Same; Same; Same; allegations of fraud in implied trusts
must be proved by clear and convincing evidence.·Allegations of
fraud in actions to enforce implied trusts must be proved by clear
and convincing evidence. The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure
require that every action must be prosecuted or defended in the
name of the real party-in-interest who is the party who stands to
benefit or suffer from the judgment in the suit. If one who is not
a real party-in-interest brings the action, the suit is dismissible
for lack of cause of action.
Civil Procedure; Actions; Parties; Real Party-in-Interest; If
one who is not a real party-in-interest brings the action, the suit
is dismissible for lack of cause of action.·The 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure require that every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who is the
party who stands to benefit or suffer from the judgment in the
suit. If one who is not a real party-in-interest brings the action,
the suit is dismissible for lack of cause of action.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Until admitted to probate, [a will]
has no effect and no right can be claimed thereunder.·Article
838 of the Civil Code states that „[N]o will shall pass either real
or personal property unless it is proved and allowed in
accordance with the Rules of Court.‰ This Court has interpreted
this provision to mean, „until admitted to probate, [a will] has no
effect whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder.

PETITION for review on certiorari of a decision of the

Court of Appeals.

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

106
:
 106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

Delos Santos, Delos Santos and Delos Santos for
petitioners.
Virgilio C. Manguera and Associate for private
respondent.

CARPIO, J.:

The Case
1
This is a petition for review of the Decision dated 31
January 1994 of the Court of Appeals ordering the Register
of Deeds of Metro Manila, District III, to place TCT No.
(232252) 1321 in the name of respondent Remedios S.
Eugenio-Gino. The Decision ordered the Register of Deeds
to cancel the names of petitioners Ricardo Pascual and
Consolacion Sioson („petitioners‰) in TCT No. (232252)
1321. The Decision also directed petitioners to pay
respondent moral and exemplary damages and attorneyÊs
fees.

The Facts

Petitioner Consolacion Sioson („CONSOLACION‰) and

respondent Remedios S. Eugenio-Gino („REMEDIOS‰) are
the niece and granddaughter, respectively, of the late
Canuto Sioson („CANUTO‰). CANUTO and 11 other
individuals, including his sister Catalina Sioson
(„CATALINA‰) and his brother Victoriano Sioson
(„VICTORIANO‰), were co-owners of a parcel of land in
Tanza, Navotas, Metro Manila. The property, known as Lot
2 of Plan Psu 13245, had an area of 9,347 square meters
and was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4207
issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal. CATALINA,
CANUTO, and VICTORIANO each owned 2
an aliquot 10/70
share or 1,335 square meters of Lot 2.

_______________

1 Penned by Justice Corona Ibay-Somera, with Justices Nathanael P.

De Pano, Jr., and Asaali S. Isnani concurring.

2 OCT No. 4207 indicates the sharing of the co-owners as follows:

Simeon Sioson ..................... 10/70

Victoriano Sioson ................ 10/70
Catalina Sioson .................. 10/70
Fermina Sioson ................... 10/70
Canuto Sioson ..................... 10/70
Calixto Sioson ....................... 5/70
Felipe Sioson ......................... 5/70
Marciana Gabriel ................. 2/70

107

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 107

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals
:
 On 20 November 1951, CANUTO had Lot 2 surveyed and
subdivided into eight lots (Lot Nos. 2-A to 2-H) through
Subdivision Plan Psd 34713 which the Director of Lands
approved on 30 May 1952. Lot No. 2-A, with an area of 670
square meters, and Lot No. 2-E, with an area of 2,000
square meters, were placed under CANUTOÊs 3
name. Three
other individuals took the remaining lots.
On 26 September 1956, CANUTO and CONSOLACION4
executed a Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan
(„KASULATAN‰). Under the KASULATAN, CANUTO sold
his 10/70 share in Lot 2 in favor of CONSOLACION for
P2,250.00. The KASULATAN, notarized by Notary Public
Jose T. de los Santos of Navotas, provides:

Na ako, CANUTO SIOSON, mamamayang Pilipino, may

katampatang gulang, kasal kay Raymunda San Diego, at
naninirahan sa Tanza, Navotas, Rizal, sa bisa at pamamagitan
ng kasulatang ito ay nagpapatunay at nagpapatibay:

1. Na ako ang lubos at tunay na may-ari ng 10/70 bahaging hindi hati

(10/70 porcion pro-indiviso) ng isang lagay na lupa (Lote No. 2, Piano
Psu-13245), na nasa sa nayon ng Tanza, Municipio ng Navotas,
Provincia ng Rizal, at ang descripcion o pagkakakilanlan ng nasabing
lote ay nakasaad sa Certificado Original, de Titulo No. 4207 ng Oficina
ng Registrador de Titulos ng Rizal, gaya ng sumusunod:
xxxx
2. Na dahil at alang-alang sa halagang Dalawang Libo Dalawang
Daan at Limampung Piso (P2,250.00), salaping Pilipino, na sa akin ay
ibinayad ni CONSOLACION SIOSON, kasal kay Ricardo S. Pascual,
may-sapat na gulang, mamamayang Pilipino, at naninirahan sa
Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal at ang pagkakatanggap ng nasa

_______________

Isabelo Gabriel ..................... 2/70

Margarito Gabriel ................ 2/70
Susana Gabriel ..................... 2/70
Emilio Gabriel ...................... 2/70

3 Subdivision Plan Psd 34713 Lot 2 subdivided the remaining portion of Lot 2
as follows:

Fermina Sioson.......................... Lot 2-D, 670 sq. meters

Lot 2-H, 2003 sq. meters
Calixto Sioson............................ Lot 2-F, 500 sq. meters
Esteban Sioson .......................... Lot 2-G, 2,499 sq. meters
Lot 2-C, 837 sq. meters

4 Exhibit „7‰ for Petitioners

108

108 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

bing halaga ay aking inaamin at pinatutunayan, ay aking ipinagbili,

inilipat at isinalin, sa pamamagitan ng bilihang tuluyan at walang
pasubali a favor [sic] sa nasabing si CONSOLACION SIOSON, sa
kanyang tagapagmana at mapaglilipatan ang lahat ng aking titulo,
karapatan at kaparti na binubuo ng 10/70 bahaging hindi hati (10/70
porcion pro-indiviso) ng loteng descrito at tinutukoy sa itaas nito.
(Emphasis supplied)

CONSOLACION immediately took possession of Lot Nos.

2-A and 2-E. She later declared the land for taxation 5
purposes and paid the corresponding real estate taxes.
:
 On 23 October 1968, the surviving children of CANUTO,6
namely, Felicidad and Beatriz, executed a joint affidavit
(„JOINT AFFIDAVIT‰) affirming the KASULATAN in
favor of CONSOLACION. They also attested that the lots
their father had sold to CONSOLACION were Lot Nos. 2-A
and 2-E of Subdivision Plan Psd 34713. The JOINT
AFFIDAVIT reads:

KAMING sina FELICIDAD SIOSON at BEATRIZ SIOSON,

pawang mga Pilipino, kapuwa may sapat na gulang at
naninirahan, ang una sa Tanza, Navotas at ang ikalawa sa
Concepcion, Malabon, lalawigan ng Rizal, sa ilalim ng isang
ganap na panunumpa alinsunod sa batas, ay malayang
nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod:
Na kami ang mga buhay na anak na naiwan ni CANUTO
SIOSON na nagmamay-ari ng 10/70 bahaging hindi hati (10/70
porcion proindiviso) ng isang lagay na lupa (Lote No. 2, piano
Psu-13245), na nasa Nayon ng Tanza, Navotas, Rizal, at ang
mga palatandaan nito ay nasasaad sa Certificado Original de
Titulo No. 4207 ng Tanggapan ng Registrador de Titulos ng
Rizal;
Na sa lubos naming kaalaman, ay ipinagbili ng aming Ama
na si Canuto Sioson ang kaniyang buong bahagi na 10/70 sa
nasabing Lote No. 2, kay CONSOLACION SIOSON, may-bahay
ni Ricardo S. Pascual, na taga Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal, sa
halagang P2,250.00, salaping pilipino, noong ika 16 [sic] ng
Septiembre, 1956, sa pamamagitan ng isang KASULATAN NG
BILIHANG TULUYAN na pinagtibay sa harap ng Notario
Publico Jose T. de los Santos nang pechang nabanggit, sa
Navotas, Rizal, (Doc. No. 194, Page No. 84; Book No. IV; Series of
1956);
Na ang nasabing lupa na ipinagbili ng aming Ama kay
Consolacion Sioson ni Pascual, ay nakikilala ngayong mga Lote
No. 2-A at Lote 2-E ng

_______________

5 Exhibit „9‰ for Petitioners.

6 Exhibit „8‰ for Petitioners.

109

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 109

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

Plano de Subdivision Psd-34713; na pinagtibay ng Assistant

Director of Lands noong Mayo 30, 1952;
Na aming ngayong pinatitibayan ang pagka-pagbili ng bahagi
ng aming Ama kay Consolacion Sioson ni Pascual ng ngayoÊy
nakikilalang Lote No. 2-A at Lote No. 2-E ng Plano de
Subdivision Psd-34713. (Emphasis supplied)

On 28 October 1968, CONSOLACION registered the

KASULATAN and the JOINT AFFIDAVIT with the Office
of the Register of Deeds of Rizal („Register of Deeds‰).
Based on these documents, the Register of Deeds issued to
CONSOLACION Transfer Certificate of Title No. (232252)
1321 covering Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E of Subdivision Plan
Psd 34713 with a total area of 2,670 square meters.
On 4 February 1988, REMEDIOS filed a complaint
against CONSOLACION and her spouse Ricardo Pascual
in the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 165, for
ÂÂAnnulment or Cancellation of Transfer Certificate [of
Title] and Damages.‰ REMEDIOS claimed that she is the
owner of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E because CATALINA devised
:
 7
these lots to her in CATALINAÊs last will and testament
(„LAST WILL‰) dated 29 May 1964. REMEDIOS added
that CONSOLACION obtained title to these lots through
fraudulent means since the area covered by TCT (232252)
1321 is twice the size of CANUTOÊs share in Lot 2.
REMEDIOS prayed for the cancellation of
CONSOLACIONÊs title, the issuance of another title in her
name, and the payment to her of damages.
Petitioners sought to dismiss the complaint on the
ground of prescription. Petitioners claimed that the basis
of the action is fraud, and REMEDIOS should have filed
the action within lour years from the registration of
CONSOLACIONÊs title on 28 October 1968 and not some
19 years later on 4 February 1988. REMEDIOS opposed
the motion, claiming that she became aware of
CONSOLACIONÊs adverse title only in February 1987.
CONSOLACION maintained that she had timely filed her
complaint within the four-year prescriptive on 4 February
1988.
In its order of 28 April 1988, the trial court denied
petitionersÊ motion to dismiss. The trial court held that the
reckoning of the prescriptive period for filing REMEDIOSÊ
complaint is evidentiary in nature and must await the
presentation of the partiesÊ evidence

_______________

7 Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya, Exhibit „A‰ for Respondent.

110

110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

during the trial. During the pre-trial stage, REMEDIOS

clarified that she was claiming only CATALINAÊs 10/70
share in Lot 2, or 1,335 square meters, 8 which constitute
1/2 of the area of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. The trial of the
case then ensued.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

On 26 November 1990, the trial court rendered judgment

dismissing the case and ordering REMEDIOS to pay
petitioners PI0,000 as attorneyÊs fees and the cost of suit.
The trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is
based on fraud, covered by the four-year prescriptive
period. The trial court also held that REMEDIOS knew of
petitionersÊ adverse title on 19 November 1982 when
REMEDIOS testified against petitioners in an ejectment
suit petitioners had filed against their tenants in Lot Nos.
2-A and 2-E. Thus, the complaint of REMEDIOS had
already prescribed when she filed it on 4 February 1988.
The trial court further ruled that REMEDIOS has no
right of action against petitioners because CATALINAÊs
LAST WILL from which REMEDIOS claims to derive her
title has not been admitted to probate. Under Article 838 of
the Civil Code, no will passes real or personal property
unless it is allowed in probate in accordance with the Rules
of Court. The dispositive portion of the trial courtÊs decision
provides:

„WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the

:
 defendants and against plaintiff, ordering:

1. The dismissal of this case;

2. The plaintiff to pay the defendants the sum of Ten
Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos as and for attorneyÊs fees;
and
9
3. The plaintiff to pay the costs of suit.‰

REMEDIOS appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 31 January 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered

judgment reversing the decision of the trial court. The
appellate court held

_______________

8 Records, p. 70.
9 Rollo, p. 71.

111

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 111

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

that what REMEDIOS filed was a suit to enforce an

implied trust allegedly created in her favor when
CONSOLACION fraudulently registered her title over Lot
Nos. 2-A and 2-E. Consequently, the prescriptive period for
filing the complaint is ten years, not four. The Court of
Appeals counted this ten-year period from 19 November
1982. Thus, when REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4
February 1988, the ten-year prescriptive period had not
yet expired.
The appellate court held that CATALlNAÊs unprobated
LAST WILL does not preclude REMEDIOS from seeking
reconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E as the LAST WILL
may subsequently be admitted to probate. The dispositive
portion of the appellate courtÊs ruling provides:

„WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and

SET ASIDE. The Registry of Deeds of Rizal or Metro Manila,
District III, is ordered to place Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(232252) 1321 under the name of Remedios S. Eugenio-Gino as
executor of the will of Catalina Sioson and cancel the names of
the Spouses Ricardo Pascual and Consolacion Sioson inscribed
over said title as owners of the covered lot. Defendants-appellees
spouses Ricardo Pascual and Consolacion Sioson are ordered to
pay plaintiff-appellant Remedios S. Eugenio-Gino moral
damages in the amount of P50,000.00, exemplary damages of
P20,000.00 and attorneyÊs fees of P20,000.00 and P500.00 per
10
appearance.‰

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the ruling. However,

the Court of Appeals denied their motion in its order dated
15 June 1994.
Hence, this petition.

The Issues

Petitioners allege the following assignment of errors:

:
 I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTÊS CAUSE OF
ACTION IS NOT BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION
WHICH FINDING IS MANIFESTLY CONTRARY
TO LAW AND THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF
THIS HONORABLE COURT.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT
HOLDING THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENT DOES
NOT HAVE ANY TITLE AND HAS UTTERLY
FAILED TO PROVE ANY TITLE TO THE LOTS
INVOLVED

_______________

10 Ibid., p. 45.

112

112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

IN THIS-CASE, AND IN ORDERING THE

CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE OF PETITIONERS.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE
ABUSE OF DISCRETION AMOUNTING TO
LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IN GROSS
VIOLATION OF THE RULES OF COURT IN
ORDERING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY COVERED
BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO.
(232252) 1321 TO BE PLACED IN THE NAME OF
PRIVATE RESPONDENT, BECAUSE THE CLAIM
OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS LIMITED ONLY
TO ONE- HALF (1/2) PORTION OF THE
PROPERTY, AND THE OTHER HALF THEREOF
UNQUESTIONABLY BELONGS TO
PETITIONERS.
IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING
THAT PETITIONERS ACTED FRAUDULENTLY
AND IN BAD FAITH IN SECURING THEIR
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE TO THE PROPERTY
INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND IN ORDERING
PETITIONERS TO PAY PRIVATE
RESPONDENTS MORAL DAMAGES,
EXEMPLARY
11
DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYÊS
FEES.

The pivotal questions are: (1) whether prescription bars

the action filed by REMEDIOS, and (2) whether
REMEDIOS is a real party-in-interest.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has merit.

The Action is Barred by Prescription

The trial court held that the action tiled by REMEDIOS is

one based on fraud. REMEDIOSÊ action seeks to recover
real property that petitioners allegedly acquired through
fraud. Consequently, the trial court held that the action
:
 prescribes in four years counted from REMEDIOSÊ actual
discovery of petitionersÊ adverse title. The trial court
concluded that REMEDIOS belatedly filed her suit on 4
February 1988 because she actually knew of petitionersÊ
adverse title since 19 November 1982.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that what
REMEDIOS filed was a suit to enforce an implied trust.
REMEDIOS had ten years counted from actual notice of
the breach of trust, that is, the assertion of adverse title,
within which to bring her action. The

_______________

11 Ibid., p. 11.

113

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 113

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

appellate court held that REMEDIOS seasonably filed her

complaint on 4 February 1988 because she allegedly
discovered petitionersÊ adverse title only on 19 November
1982.
What REMEDIOS filed was an action to enforce an
implied trust but the same is already barred by
prescription.

Prescriptive Period is 10 Years Counted

From Registration of Adverse Title
The four-year prescriptive period relied upon by the trial
court applies only if the fraud does not give rise to an
implied trust, and the
12
action is to annul a voidable contract
under Article 1390 of the Civil Code. In such a 13
case, the
four-year prescriptive period under Article 1391 begins to
run from the time of discovery of the mistake, violence,
intimidation, undue influence or fraud.
In the present case, REMEDIOS does not seek to annul
the KASULATAN. REMEDIOS does not assail the
KASULATAN as a voidable contract. In fact, REMEDIOS
admits the validity of the sale of 1,335 square meters of
land under the KASULATAN. However, REMEDIOS
alleges that the excess area of 1,335 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 to CONSOLACION. Consequently,
REMEDIOSÊ action is for „Annulment or Cancellation of
14
Transfer Certificate [of Title] and Damages.‰
REMEDIOSÊ action is based on an implied trust under
Article 1456 since she claims that the inclusion of the
additional 1,335 square meters in TCT No. (232252) 1321
was without basis. In effect, REMEDIOS asserts that
CONSOLACION acquired the additional 1,335 square
meters through mistake or fraud and thus

_______________

12 Article 1390 of the Civil Code provides: „The following contracts are

voidable or annullable, even though there may have been no damage to

the contracting parties:

(1) x x x
(2) Those where the consent is vitiated by mistake, violence,
:
 intimidation, undue influence or fraud, x x x.‰

13 Article 1391 of the Civil Code provides: „The action for annulment

shall be brought within four years. This period shall begin: x x x In case
of mistake or fraud, from the time of the discovery of the same.‰
14 Records, p. 1.

114

114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

CONSOLACION should be considered a trustee of an

implied trust for the benefit of the rightful owner of the
property. Clearly, the applicable prescriptive period is ten
years under Article 1144 and not four years under Articles
1389 and 1391.
It is now well-settled that the prescriptive period to
recover property obtained by fraud or15mistake, giving rise
to an implied trust under Article 1456 of16the Civil Code, is
ten years pursuant to Article 1144. This ten-year
prescriptive period begins to run from the date the adverse
party repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation 17
takes place when the adverse party registers the land.
REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4 February 1988 or
more than 19 years after CONSOLACION registered her
title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E on 28 October 1968.
Unquestionably, REMEDIOS filed the complaint late thus
warranting its dismissal. As the Court
18
recently declared in
Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras, ·
19
Following Caro, we have consistently held that an action for
reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years.
We went further by

_______________

15 Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides: „If property is acquired through
mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee
of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.‰
16 Article 1144 of the Civil Code provides: „The following actions must be
brought within ten years from the time the right of action accrues:

xxx
Upon an obligation created by law;
x x x.‰

17 Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras, G.R. No. 144225, 17 June 2003, 404
SCRA 145; Vda. de Delgado v. Court of Appeals, 416 Phil. 263; 363 SCRA 758
(2001); Villanueva-Mijares v. Court of Appeals, 386 Phil. 555; 330 SCRA 349
(2000); David v. Malay, 376 Phil. 825; 318 SCRA 711 (1999); Heirs of Joaquin
Teves v. Court of Appeals, 375 Phil. 96; 316 SCRA 632 (1999); Lebrilla v.
Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R. No. 72623, 18 December 1989, 180 SCRA 188;
Villagonzalo v. Intermediate Appellate Court, G.R No. L-71110, 22 November
1988, 167 SCRA 535; Carantes v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. L-33360, 25 April
1977, 76 SCRA 514.
18 G.R. No. 144225, 17 June 2003, 404 SCRA 145.
19 Caro v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76148, 20 December 1989, 180 SCRA 401.

115

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 115

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals
:
 specifying the reference point of the ten-year prescriptive period
as the date of the registration of the deed or the issuance of the
title.

The Court of AppealsÊ Reckoning of

Prescriptive Period from Actual Notice
of Adverse Title Not Justified
In holding that the action filed by REMEDIOS has not
prescribed, the Court of Appeals20 invoked this CourtÊs
ruling in Adille v. Court of Appeals.
In Adille, the Court reckoned the ten-year prescriptive
period for enforcing implied trusts not from registration of
the adverse title but from actual notice of the adverse title
by the cestui que trust. However, the Court, in justifying its
deviation from the general rule, explained:

[W]hile actions to enforce a constructive trust prescribes (sic) in

ten years, reckoned from the date of the registration of the
property, we x x x are not prepared to count the period from such
date in this case. We note the petitionerÊs sub rosa efforts to get
hold of the property exclusively for himself beginning with his
fraudulent misrepresentation in his unilateral affidavit of
extrajudicial settlement that he is „the only heir and child of his
mother Feliza[‰] with the consequence that he was able to secure
title in his name also. (Emphasis supplied)

Such commission of specific fraudulent conduct is absent in

the present case. Other than asserting that petitioners are
guilty of fraud because they secured title to Lot Nos. 2-A
and 2-E with an area twice bigger than what CANUTO
allegedly sold to CONSOLACION, REMEDIOS did not
present any other proof of petitionersÊ fraudulent conduct
akin to Adille.
CONSOLACION obtained title to Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E
through the KASULATAN executed by CANUTO and the
JOINT AFFIDAVIT executed by his surviving children, one
of whom, Felicidad, is the mother of REMEDIOS. The
KASULATAN referred to the sale of CANUTOÊs 10/70
share in Lot 2 without specifying the area of the lot sold.
The JOINT AFFIDAVIT referred to the „Piano de
Subdivision Psd-34713‰ without also specifying the area of
the lot sold. However, Subdivision Plan Psd 34713, as
certified by the Assistant Director of Lands on 30 May
1952, showed an area of

_______________

20 G.R. No. L-44546, 29 January 1988, 157 SCRA 455.

116

116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

2,670 square meters in the name of CANUTO. Based on

these documents, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No.
(232252) 1321 to CONSOLACION covering an area of
2,670 square meters.
REMEDIOS does not assail the KASULATAN or the
JOINT AFFIDAVIT as fictitious or forged. REMEDIOS
even admits the authenticity of Subdivision Plan Psd 21
34713 as certified by the Assistant Director of Lands.
:
 Moreover, REMEDIOS has not contested petitioners1 claim
that CANUTO doubled 22
his share in Lot 2 by acquiring
VICTORIANOÊs share.
Plainly, the increase in the area sold from 1,335 square
meters to 2,670 square meters is a glaring mistake. There
is, however, no proof whatsoever that this increase in area
was the result of fraud. Allegations of fraud in actions to
enforce implied trusts 23
must be proved by clear and 24
convincing evidence. Adille, which is anchored on fraud,
cannot apply to the present case.
At any rate, even if we apply Adille to this case,
prescription still bars REMEDIOSÊ complaint. As executrix
of CATALINAÊs LAST WILL, REMEDIOS submitted to the
then Court of First Instance of Caloocan in Special
Proceedings Case No. C-208 the inventory of all the
property comprising CATALINAÊs estate, which included
Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. In a motion dated 7 November 1977,
CONSOLACION sought the exclusion of these lots from
the inventory, invoking her title over them. REMEDIOS
was served a copy of the motion on 8 November 1977
against which she filed an opposition. Nevertheless, the
trial court overruled REMEDIOSÊ objection. In its order of
3 January 1978, the trial court granted CONSOLACIONÊs
motion and ordered the exclusion of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E
from the estate of CATALINA. REMEDIOS did not appeal
from this ruling.
REMEDIOS thus had actual notice of petitionersÊ
adverse title on 8 November 1977. Even if, for the sake of
argument, the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run
upon actual notice of the adverse title, still REMEDIOSÊ
right to file this suit has prescribed. REMEDIOS had until
11 November 1987 within which to file her

_______________

21 Rollo, pp. 169-170.

22 Rollo, pp. 9, 20.
23 Jaramil v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-3 1858, 3 I August 1977, 78

SCRA 420.
24 Samonte v. Court of Appeals, 413 Phil. 487; 361 SCRA 173 (2001).

117

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 117

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

complaint. When she did so on 4 February 1988, the

prescriptive period had already lapsed.

Respondent is Not a Real Party-in-Interest

Not only does prescription bar REMEDIOSÊ complaint.

REMEDIOS is also not a real party-in-interest who can file
the complaint, as the trial court correctly ruled.
The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure require that every
action must be prosecuted or defended in the name of the
real party-in-interest who is the party who25 stands to
benefit or suffer from the judgment in the suit. If one who
is not a real party-in-interest brings 26the action, the suit is
dismissible for lack of cause of action.
REMEDIOS anchored her claim over Lot Nos. 2-A and
2-E (or over its one-half portion) on the devise of these lots
to her under CATALINAÊs LAST WILL. However, the trial
:
 court found that the probate court did not issue any order
admitting the LAST WILL to probate. REMEDIOS does
not contest this finding. Indeed, during the trial,
REMEDIOS admitted27 that Special Proceedings Case No.
C-208 is still pending.
Article 838 of the Civil Code states that „[N]o will shall
pass either real or personal property unless it is proved
and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court.‰ This
Court has interpreted this provision to mean, „until
admitted to probate, [a will] has no28effect whatever and no
right can be claimed thereunder.‰ REMEDIOS anchors
her right in filing this suit on her being a devisee of
CATALINAÊs LAST WILL. However, since the probate
court has not admitted CATALINAÊs LAST WILL,
REMEDIOS has not acquired any right under the LAST
WILL. REMEDIOS is thus without any cause of action
either to seek reconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E or to
enforce an implied trust over these lots.
The appellate court tried to go around this deficiency by
ordering the reconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E to
REMEDIOS in her capacity as executrix of CATALINAÊs
LAST WILL. This is inap-

_______________

25 Rule 3, Sec. 2.
26 Sustiguer v. Tamayo, G.R No. 29341, 21 August 1989, 176 SCRA
579.
TSN, 17 March 1989, p. 15 (Remedios Eugenio-Gino).
27

Cañiza v. Court of Appeals, G.R No. 110427, 24 February 1997, 268

28

SCRA 640.

118

118 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

propriate because REMEDIOS sued petitioners not in such

capacity but as the alleged owner of the disputed lots.
Thus, REMEDIOS alleged in her complaint:

3. The plaintiff is a niece and compulsory heir of the

late CATAL1NA SIOSON who died single and
without any child of her own and who, during her
lifetime, was the owner of those two (2) parcels of
land located at Tanza, Navotas, Rizal (now Metro
Manila), formerly covered by Original Certificate of
Title No. 4207 of the Registry of Deeds for the
Province of Rizal, x x x.
4. The plaintiff, aside from being the compulsory heir
of the deceased CATALINA SIOSON, has sole and
exclusive claim of ownership over the above-
mentioned two (2) parcels of land by virtue of a will
or „Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya‰ executed by
Catalina Sioson on May 19, 1964 before Notary
Public Efren Y. Angeles at Navotas, Rizal, in which
document the deceased Catalina Sioson specifically
and exclusively bequeathed to the plaintiff the
above-mentioned Lots 2-A and 2-E of Psd-34713
approved by the Bureau of Lands on May 30, 1952.
Copy of the „Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya‰
consisting of four (4) pages is hereto attached and
forms an integral part hereof as Annex „A;‰
:
 5. Sometime on or about February, 1987, plaintiff
discovered that the above-mentioned Lots 2-A and
2-E of subdivision plan Psd-34713 are now
registered or titled in the name of the defendants
under Transfer Certificate of Title No. (232252)
1321 of the Registry of Deeds of Rizal, now Metro-
Manila District III. Copy of the title is hereto
attached and forms an integral part hereof as
Annex „B;‰
6. Upon further inquiry and investigation, plaintiff
discovered that the defendants were able to obtain
title in their name of the said parcels of land by
virtue of a „Kasulatan ng Bilihang Tuluyan‰
allegedly executed by Canuto Sioson on September
26, 1956 before Notary Public Jose [T.] de los
Santos of Navotas, Metro-Manila. Copy of the said
document is hereto attached and forms an integral
part hereof as Annex „C;‰
7. The plaintiff also discovered that although x x x the
original sale did not specify the parcels of land sold
by Canuto Sioson, the defendants submitted an
alleged Affidavit executed by Felicidad Sioson and
Beatriz Sioson identifying the lots sold by Canuto
Sioson to the defendants as Lots 2-A and 2-E of
subdivision plan Psd-34713. Copy of the Affidavit
dated October 3, 1968 on the basis of which the
present Transfer Certificate of Title No. (232252)
1321 was issued to the defendants is hereto
attached and forms an integral part hereof as
Annex „D;‰
8. The defendants are clearly guilty of fraud in
presenting the aforementioned Affidavit (Annex
„D‰) to the Register of Deeds as the basis of their
claim toÊ Lots 2-A and 2-E in view of the fact that
the parcels sold to them by Canuto Sioson,
assuming there was such a sale, were different

119

VOL. 409, AUGUST 15, 2003 119

Pascual vs. Court of Appeals

parcels of land, Lots 2-A and 2-E being the properties of

the late Catalina Sioson who bequeathed the same to the
plaintiff.
xxxx

12. Because of the defendantsÊ fraudulent actuations on

this matter, plaintiff suffered and continues (sic) to
suffer moral damages arising from anxiety, shock
and wounded feelings. Defendants should also be
assessed exemplary damages by way of a lesson to
deter them from again committing the fraudulent
acts, or acts of similar nature, by virtue of which
they were able to obtain title
29
to the parcels of land
involved in this case x x x. (Emphasis supplied)

Indeed, all throughout the proceedings below and even in

her Comment to this petition, REMEDIOS continued to
pursue her claim as the alleged owner of one-half of the
disputed lots.
:
 Other Matters Raised in the Petition

The Court deems it unnecessary to pass upon the other

errors petitioners assigned concerning the award of
damages and attorneys fees to REMEDIOS. Such award
assumes that REMEDIOS is a real party-in-interest and
that she timely filed her complaint. As earlier shown, this
is not the case.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Decision of
the Court of Appeals dated 31 January 1994 and its
Resolution dated 15 June 1994 are SET ASIDE. The
complaint filed by respondent Remedios Eugenio-Gino,
dated 2 February 1988 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr. (C.J., Chairman), Vitug, Ynares-

Santiago and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

Note.·Elementary is the rule in this jurisdiction that

One does not have a vested right in procedural rules.
(Valenzuela vs. Court of Appeals, 363 SCRA 779 [2001])

··o0o··

_______________

29 Records, pp. 1-3.

120

© Copyright 2010 CentralBooks Inc. All rights reserved.

: