G.R. No. 184109. February 1, 2012.

*
CELERINO E. MERCADO, petitioner, vs. BELEN**
***
ESPINOCILLA AND FERDINAND ESPINOCILLA,
respondents.

Civil Law; Property; Prescription; Words and Phrases; Prescription,

as a mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over immovable
property, is concerned with lapse of time in the manner and under
conditions laid down by law, namely, that the possession should be in the
concept of an owner, public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse.—
Prescription, as a mode of acquiring ownership and other real rights over
immovable property, is con-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

** Avelina in some parts of the records.

*** This surname is spelled Espenocilla in some parts of the records.

725

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 725

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

cerned with lapse of time in the manner and under conditions laid down by
law, namely, that the possession should be in the concept of an owner,
public, peaceful, uninterrupted, and adverse. Acquisitive prescription of real
rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription
requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. In
extraordinary prescription, ownership and other real rights over immovable
property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse possession for 30 years
without need of title or of good faith.
Same; Same; Constructive Trusts; In a constructive trust, there is
neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called
trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the
beneficiary.—Petitioner himself admits the adverse nature of respondents’
possession with his assertion that Macario’s fraudulent acquisition of
Dionisia’s share created a constructive trust. In a constructive trust, there is
neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to speak of and the so-called
trustee (Macario) neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the property
for the beneficiary (Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel). The relation of trustee and
cestui que trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a constructive trust
is for the trustee himself, and therefore, at all times adverse. Prescription
may supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the relationship.
Same; Same; Reconveyance; Prescription; An action for reconveyance
based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years from the
time the right of action accrues.—The CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s
complaint as an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive
trust prescribes in 10 years from the time the right of action accrues. This is
the other kind of prescription under the Civil Code, called extinctive
prescription, where rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time.
Petitioner’s action for recovery of possession having been filed 55 years
after Macario occupied Dionisia’s share, it is also barred by extinctive
prescription. The CA while condemning Macario’s fraudulent act of
depriving his three sisters of their shares in Dionisia’s share, equally
emphasized the fact that Macario’s sisters wasted their opportunity to
question his acts.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and resolution of

the Court of Appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Juan Sanchez Dealca for petitioner.

726

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

Public Attorney’s Office for respondents.

VILLARAMA, JR., J.:

The Case

Petitioner Celerino E. Mercado appeals the Decision1 dated April

28, 2008 and Resolution2 dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 87480. The CA dismissed
petitioner’s complaint3 for recovery of possession, quieting of title,
partial declaration of nullity of deeds and documents, and damages,
on the ground of prescription.
The antecedent facts
Doroteo Espinocilla owned a parcel of land, Lot No. 552, with an
area of 570 sq. m., located at Magsaysay Avenue, Zone 5, Bulan,
Sorsogon. After he died, his five children, Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel,
Macario, and Dionisia divided Lot No. 552 equally among
themselves. Later, Dionisia died without issue ahead of her four
siblings, and Macario took possession of Dionisia’s share. In an
affidavit of transfer of real property4 dated November 1, 1948,
Macario claimed that Dionisia had donated her share to him in May
1945.
Thereafter, on August 9, 1977, Macario and his daughters Betty
Gullaba and Saida Gabelo sold5 225 sq. m. to his son Roger
Espinocilla, husband of respondent Belen Espinocilla and father of
respondent Ferdinand Espinocilla. On March 8, 1985, Roger
Espinocilla sold6 114 sq. m. to Caridad Atienza. Per actual survey of
Lot No. 552, respondent Belen Espinocilla occupies 109 sq. m.,
Caridad Atienza

_______________
1 Rollo, pp. 17-28. Penned by Associate Justice Ramon M. Bato, Jr. with the
concurrence of Associate Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Jose C. Reyes, Jr.
2 Id., at pp. 70-71.
3 Records, pp. 1-7.
4 Exhibit “4”.
5 Records, p. 10.
6 Exhibit “8”.

727

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 727

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

occupies 120 sq. m., Caroline Yu occupies 209 sq. m., and petitioner,
Salvacion’s son, occupies 132 sq. m.7

The case for petitioner

Petitioner sued the respondents to recover two portions: an area

of 28.58 sq. m. which he bought from Aspren and another 28.5 sq.
m. which allegedly belonged to him but was occupied by Macario’s
house.9 His claim has since been modified to an alleged
encroachment of only 39 sq. m. that he claims must be returned to
him. He avers that he is entitled to own and possess 171 sq. m. of
Lot No. 552, having inherited 142.5 sq. m. from his mother
Salvacion and bought 28.5 sq. m. from his aunt Aspren. According
to him, his mother’s inheritance is 142.5 sq. m., that is, 114 sq. m.
from Doroteo plus 28.5 sq. m. from Dionisia. Since the area he
occupies is only 132 sq. m.,10 he claims that respondents encroach
on his share by 39 sq. m.11

The case for respondents

Respondents agree that Doroteo’s five children each inherited

114 sq. m. of Lot No. 552. However, Macario’s share increased
when he received Dionisia’s share. Macario’s increased share was
then sold to his son Roger, respondents’ husband and father.
Respondents claim that they rightfully possess the land they occupy
by virtue of acquisitive prescription and that there is no basis for
petitioner’s claim of encroachment.12

The trial court’s decision

On May 15, 2006, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor
of petitioner and held that he is entitled to 171 sq. m. The RTC
found
 _______________
7 Exhibit “I-3”.
8 28.3 sq. m. in other parts of the records.
9 Records, pp. 2-3.
10 Rollo, p. 155.
11 Id., at p. 160.
12 Id., at pp. 142, 144-145.

728

728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

that petitioner inherited 142.5 sq. m. from his mother Salvacion and
bought 28.5 sq. m. from his aunt Aspren. The RTC computed that
Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel and Macario each inherited 142.5 sq. m. of
Lot No. 552. Each inherited 114 sq. m. from Doroteo and 28.5 sq. m.
from Dionisia. The RTC further ruled that Macario was not entitled
to 228 sq. m. Thus, respondents must return 39 sq. m. to petitioner
who occupies only 132 sq. m.13
There being no public document to prove Dionisia’s donation,
the RTC also held that Macario’s 1948 affidavit is void and is an
invalid repudiation of the shares of his sisters Salvacion, Aspren, and
Isabel in Dionisia’s share. Accordingly, Macario cannot acquire said
shares by prescription. The RTC further held that the oral partition
of Lot No. 552 by Doroteo’s heirs did not include Dionisia’s share
and that partition should have been the main action. Thus, the RTC
ordered partition and deferred the transfer of possession of the 39 sq.
m. pending partition.14 The dispositive portion of the RTC decision
reads:

“WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing premises, the court issues the

following ORDER, thus—
a) Partially declaring the nullity of the Deed of Absolute Sale of Property dated
August 9, 1977 x x x executed by Macario Espinocilla, Betty E. Gullaba and
Saida E. Gabelo in favor of Roger Espinocilla, insofar as it affects the
portion or the share belonging to Salvacion Espinocilla, mother of
[petitioner,] relative to the property left by Dionisia Espinocilla, including
[Tax Declaration] No. 13667 and other documents of the same nature and
character which emanated from the said sale;
b) To leave as is the Deeds of Absolute Sale of May 11, 1983 and March 8,
1985, it having been determined that they did not involve the portion
belonging to [petitioner] x x x.
c) To effect an effective and real partition among the heirs for purposes of
determining the exact location of the share (114 sq. m.) of the late Dionisia
Espinocilla together with the 28.5 sq. m. belonging to [petitioner’s] mother
Salvacion, as well as, the exact loca-

_______________
13 Records, pp. 243-244.
14 Id., at pp. 244-247.
 729

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 729

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

tion of the 39 sq. m. portion belonging to the [petitioner] being

encroached by the [respondents], with the assistance of the
Commissioner (Engr. Fundano) appointed by this court.
d) To hold in abeyance the transfer of possession of the 39 sq. m. portion to the
[petitioner] pending the completion of the real partition above-
mentioned.”15

The CA decision

On appeal, the CA reversed the RTC decision and dismissed

petitioner’s complaint on the ground that extraordinary acquisitive
prescription has already set in in favor of respondents. The CA
found that Doroteo’s four remaining children made an oral partition
of Lot No. 552 after Dionisia’s death in 1945 and occupied specific
portions. The oral partition terminated the co-ownership of Lot No.
552 in 1945. Said partition also included Dionisia’s share because
the lot was divided into four parts only. And since petitioner’s
complaint was filed only on July 13, 2000, the CA concluded that
prescription has set in.16 The CA disposed the appeal as follows:

“WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The assailed May 15, 2006

Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Bulan, Sorsogon is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Complaint of the [petitioner] is hereby
DISMISSED. No costs.”17

The instant petition

The core issue to be resolved is whether petitioner’s action to

recover the subject portion is barred by prescription.
Petitioner confirms oral partition of Lot No. 552 by Doroteo’s
heirs, but claims that his share increased from 114 sq. m. to 171 sq.
m. and that respondents encroached on his share by 39 sq. m. Since
an oral partition is valid, the corresponding survey ordered by the
RTC to

_______________
15 Id., at pp. 246-247.
16 Rollo, pp. 23-24.
17 Id., at p. 28.

730

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mercado vs. Espinocilla
identify the 39 sq. m. that must be returned to him could be made.18
Petitioner also alleges that Macario committed fraud in acquiring his
share; hence, any evidence adduced by him to justify such
acquisition is inadmissible. Petitioner concludes that if a person
obtains legal title to property by fraud or concealment, courts of
equity will impress upon the title a so-called constructive trust in
favor of the defrauded party.19

The Court’s ruling

We affirm the CA ruling dismissing petitioner’s complaint on the

ground of prescription.
Prescription, as a mode of acquiring ownership and other real
rights over immovable property, is concerned with lapse of time in
the manner and under conditions laid down by law, namely, that the
possession should be in the concept of an owner, public, peaceful,
uninterrupted, and adverse. Acquisitive prescription of real rights
may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive prescription
requires possession in good faith and with just title for 10 years. In
extraordinary prescription, ownership and other real rights over
immovable property are acquired through uninterrupted adverse
possession for 30 years without need of title or of good faith.20
Here, petitioner himself admits the adverse nature of
respondents’ possession with his assertion that Macario’s fraudulent
acquisition of Dionisia’s share created a constructive trust. In a
constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary
relation to speak of and the so-called trustee (Macario) neither
accepts any trust nor intends holding the property for the beneficiary
(Salvacion, Aspren, Isabel). The relation of trustee and cestui que
trust does not in fact exist, and the holding of a constructive trust is
for the trustee himself, and

_______________
18 Id., at pp. 155-160.
19 Id., at pp. 162-163.
20 Tan v. Ramirez, G.R. No. 158929, August 3, 2010, 626 SCRA 327, 335-336;
Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo v. Rañon, G.R. No. 171068, September 5,
2007, 532 SCRA 391, 404-405; Calicdan v. Cendaña, G.R. No. 155080, February 5,
2004, 422 SCRA 272, 279.

731

VOL. 664, FEBRUARY 1, 2012 731

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

therefore, at all times adverse.21 Prescription may supervene even if

the trustee does not repudiate the relationship.22
Then, too, respondents’ uninterrupted adverse possession for 55
years of 109 sq. m. of Lot No. 552 was established. Macario
occupied Dionisia’s share in 1945 although his claim that Dionisia
donated it to him in 1945 was only made in a 1948 affidavit. We also
agree with the CA that Macario’s possession of Dionisia’s share was
public and adverse since his other co-owners, his three other sisters,
also occupied portions of Lot No. 552. Indeed, the 1977 sale made
by Macario and his two daughters in favor of his son Roger confirms
the adverse nature of Macario’s possession because said sale of 225
sq. m.23 was an act of ownership over Macario’s original share and
Dionisia’s share. In 1985, Roger also exercised an act of ownership
when he sold 114 sq. m. to Caridad Atienza. It was only in the year
2000, upon receipt of the summons to answer petitioner’s complaint,
that respondents’ peaceful possession of the remaining portion (109
sq. m.) was interrupted. By then, however, extraordinary acquisitive
prescription has already set in in favor of respondents. That the RTC
found Macario’s 1948 affidavit void is of no moment. Extraordinary
prescription is unconcerned with Macario’s title or good faith.
Accordingly, the RTC erred in ruling that Macario cannot acquire by
prescription the shares of Salvacion, Aspren, and Isabel, in
Dionisia’s 114-sq. m. share from Lot No. 552.
Moreover, the CA correctly dismissed petitioner’s complaint as
an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
prescribes in 10 years from the time the right of action accrues.24
This is the other kind of prescription under the Civil Code, called
extinctive prescription, where rights and actions are lost by the lapse
of

_______________
21 Cañezo v. Rojas, G.R. No. 148788, November 23, 2007, 538 SCRA 242, 258.
22 Id.
23 Should have been 228 sq. m. since 114 sq. m. (Macario’s share) + 114 sq. m.
(Dionisia’s share) = 228 sq. m.
24 See Aznar Brothers Realty Company v. Aying, G.R. No. 144773, May 16, 2005,
458 SCRA 496, 509-510.

732

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Mercado vs. Espinocilla

time.25 Petitioner’s action for recovery of possession having been

filed 55 years after Macario occupied Dionisia’s share, it is also
barred by extinctive prescription. The CA while condemning
Macario’s fraudulent act of depriving his three sisters of their shares
in Dionisia’s share, equally emphasized the fact that Macario’s
sisters wasted their opportunity to question his acts.
WHEREFORE, we DENY the petition for review on certiorari
for lack of merit and AFFIRM the assailed Decision dated April 28,
2008 and Resolution dated July 22, 2008 of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. CV No. 87480.
No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED.
 Corona (C.J., Chairperson), Leonardo-De Castro, Bersamin
and Del Castillo, JJ., concur.

Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.

Notes.—The ten year ordinary prescriptive period to acquire title

through possession of real property in the concept of an owner
requires uninterrupted possession coupled with just title and good
faith. (Villanueva vs. Branoco, 640 SCRA 308 [2011]).
An action for reconveyance based on a constructive implied trust
prescribes in 10 years in accordance with Article 1144 of the Civil
Code. (Estate of Margarita D. Cabacungan vs. Laigo, 655 SCRA
366 [2011]).
——o0o——

_______________
25 Morales v. Court of First Instance (Misamis Occidental), No. L-52278, May
29, 1980, 97 SCRA 872, 874.

© Copyright 2024 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.