Cabrera vs Court of Appeals

Facts:

The petitioner assailed the decision of CA in reversing the decision of CFI and ordered defendant Vda. de
Cabrera to vacate the portion of a lot in question and surrender the possession thereof to Orais.

The lot in question was originally owned by Daniel Teokemian, Albertana Teokemian and Felicidad
Teokemian then later sold to Orais without signature of Felicidad. Another deed of sale was executed by
Felicidad for the same lot in favor of the petitioner Vda. De Cabrera. Thereafter Vda. De Cabrera and he
husband immediately took possession on the said lot.

Before the RTC of Davao Oriental, an action for Quieting of Title to Real Property was raised by
defendant Vda. de Cabrera against Orais. RTC ruled in favor of the defendant Vda. de Cabrera to execute
a re-conveyance within thirty (30) days after this decision on the portion of a lot in question actually and
physically possessed and occupied by the defendant plus damages.

Orais filed an appeal to CA. CA reversed the decision of CFI based on the fact that even as the appellate
court observed that the registration made by the plaintiffs was fraudulent insofar as it involved the one-
third interest of Felicidad Teokemian, which was not included in the sale executed by them and
Albertana and Daniel Teokemian, it nevertheless upheld its effects, on the justification that the
defendants action for re-conveyance based on an implied trust had already been barred by prescription.

Hence, Vda. De Cabrera are now before the Court as Petitioners for Review on Certiorari.

Issue:

Whether or not CA erred in ruling that the private respondents complaint filed for quieting of title which
actually is one for recovery of ownership and possession and is not barred by laches

Held:

Yes. An action for re-conveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in
10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of
the certificate of title over the property. But this rule applies only when the plaintiff or the person
enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner
thereof is an actual possession of the property, as the defendants are in the instant case, the right to
seek re-conveyance, which, in effect, seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. Also, even
if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the
other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. This is because the sale or other disposition affects
only his undivided share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the
partition of the things owned in common. No prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heir so
long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.

Thus, The decision of CA is set aside and the decision of CFI is reinstated.