G.R. No. 144773. May 16, 2005.

* is correct that the provision of law applicable to this case is

AZNAR BROTHERS REALTY COMPANY, Article 1456 of the Civil Code which states: ART. 1456. If
petitioner, vs.LAURENCIO AYING, in his own behalf and property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person
in behalf of the other heirs of Emiliano Aying, Paulino obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an
implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the
Aying, in his own behalf and in behalf of the other heirs of
property comes. In Vda. de Esconde vs. Court of Appeals, the
Simeon Aying, and Wenceslao Sumalinog, in his own
Court expounded thus: Construing this provision of the Civil
behalf and in behalf of the other heirs of Roberta Aying, Code, in Philippine National Bank v. Court of Appeals, the
respondents. Court stated: A deeper analysis of Article 1456 reveals that it is
Succession; Extrajudicial Partition; An Extrajudicial not a trust in the technical sense for in a typical trust,
Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale is valid and confidence is reposed in one person who is named a trustee for
binding only as to the heirs who participated in the execution the benefit of another who is called the cestui que trust,
thereof.Respondents alleged in their amended complaint that respecting property which is held by the trustee for the benefit
not all the co-owners of the land in question signed or executed of the cestui que trust. A constructive trust, unlike an express
the document conveying ownership thereof to petitioner and trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation.
made the conclusion that said document is null and void. We While in an express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are
agree with the ruling of the RTC and the CA that the linked by confidential or fiduciary relations, in a constructive
Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation to
Sale is valid and binding only as to the heirs who participated speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust nor
in the execution thereof, hence, the heirs of Emiliano, Simeon intends holding the property for the beneficiary.
and Roberta Aying, who undisputedly did not participate Same; Same; Same; Prescription; Words and
therein, cannot be bound by said document. Phrases;Trusts, Explained; In constructive implied trusts,
Property; Ownership; Trusts; If property is acquired prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not
through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of repudiate the relationship.The concept of constructive trusts
law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of was further elucidated in the same case, as follows: . . . implied
the person from whom the property comes.The facts on record trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible
show that petitioner acquired the entire parcel of land with the from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which
mistaken belief that all the heirs have executed the subject are superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as
document. Thus, the trial court matters of equity, independently of the particular intention of
_______________
the parties. In turn, implied trusts are either resulting or
*SECOND DIVISION. constructive trusts. These two are differentiated from each
497 other as follows: Resulting trusts are based on the equitable
VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 497 doctrine that valuable consideration and not legal title
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying determines the equitable title or interest and are presumed
always to have been contemplated by the parties. They arise
from the nature of circumstances of the consideration involved based on implied or constructive trust, to wit: . . . under the
in a transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested present Civil Code, we find that just as an implied or
with legal title but is obligated in equity to hold his legal title constructive trust is an offspring of the law (Art. 1456, Civil
for the benefit of another. On the other hand, constructive Code), so is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the
trusts are created by the construction of equity in order property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. In this
to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust context, and vis--vis prescription, Article 1144 of the Civil
enrichment. They arise contrary to intention against Code is applicable. Article 1144. The following actions must be
one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, brought within ten years from the time the right of action
obtains or holds the legal right to property which he accrues: (1) Upon a written contract; (2) Upon an obligation
ought not, in equity and created by law; (3) Upon a judgment. x x x x x x x x x An action
498 for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED must perforce prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. A long
98 line of decisions of this Court, and of very recent vintage at
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying that, illustrates this rule. Undoubtedly, it is now well-settled
good conscience, to hold. (Emphasis supplied) Based on that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or
such concept of constructive trusts, the Court ruled in said case constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the issuance of
that: The rule that a trustee cannot acquire by prescription the Torrens title over the property. It has also been ruled that
ownership over property entrusted to him until and unless he the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date of
repudiates the trust, applies to express trusts and resulting registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the
implied trusts. However, in constructive implied trusts, certificate of title over the property, but if the person claiming
prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property,
repudiate the relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of said the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet
trust is not a condition precedent to the running of the title to the property, does not prescribe.
499
prescriptive period.
Same; Same; Same; Same; Actions; Reconveyance; Quietin VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 499
g of Title; An action for reconveyance based on an implied or Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
constructive trust must perforce prescribe in ten years and not Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Registration of
otherwise; The ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from instruments must be done in the proper registry in order to
the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of affect and bind the land and, thus, operate as constructive
the certificate of title over the property, but if the person notice to the world, otherwise the prescriptive period will only
claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the begin to run from the time the adversely affected persons have
property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to actual notice of the deed.In Spouses Abrigo vs. De Vera, it was
quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.In Amerol vs. held that registration of instruments must be done in the
Bagumbaran, the Court expounded on the prescriptive period proper registry, in order to affect and bind the land and, thus,
within which to bring an action for reconveyance of property operate as constructive notice to the world. Therein, the Court
ruled: x x x If the land is registered under the Land petitioner, as the defendant before the RTC, which set up in its
Registration Act (and has therefore a Torrens Title), and it is Answer the
sold but the subsequent sale is registered not under the Land 500
Registration Act but under Act 3344, as amended, such sale is 5 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
not considered REGISTERED x x x. In this case, since the 00
Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
Sale was registered under Act No. 3344 and not under Act No. affirmative defense of prescription. It was, therefore,
496, said document is deemed not registered. Accordingly, the incumbent upon petitioner to prove the date from which the
ten-year prescriptive period cannot be reckoned from March 6, prescriptive period began to run. Evidence as to the date when
1964, the date of registration of the subject document under the ten-year prescriptive period began exists only as to the
Act No. 3344. The prescriptive period only began to run from heirs of Roberta Aying, as Wenceslao Sumalinog admitted that
the time respondents had actual notice of the Extra-Judicial they learned of the existence of the document of sale in the year
Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale. 1967. As to the heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon Aying,
Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Same; Evidence; Burden there is no clear evidence of the date when they discovered the
of Proof; The test for determining where the burden of proof lies document conveying the subject land to petitioner. Petitioner
is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no miserably failed to adduce proof of when the heirs of Emiliano
evidence competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the Aying and Simeon Aying were notified of the subject document.
relief he seeks to obtain; It is incumbent upon the party who sets Hence, with regard to said heirs, the Court may consider the
up the affirmative defense of prescription to prove the date from admission in the amended complaint that they learned of the
which the prescriptive period began to run.The test for conveyance of the disputed land only in 1991 when petitioner
determining where the burden of proof lies is to ask which sent notices to vacate to the occupants of the subject land, as
party to an action or suit will fail if he offers no evidence the date from which the ten-year prescriptive period should be
competent to show the facts averred as the basis for the relief reckoned.
he seeks to obtain. Moreover, one alleging a fact that is denied
has the burden of proving it and unless the party asserting the PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
affirmative of an issue sustains the burden of proof of that resolution of the Court of Appeals.
issue by a preponderance of the evidence, his cause will not
succeed. Thus, the defendant bears the burden of proof as to all The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
affirmative defenses which he sets up in answer to the Rolindo A. Navarro for petitioner.
plaintiffs claim or cause of action; he being the party who
Santos, Pilapil & Associates for respondents.
asserts the truth of the matter he has alleged, the burden is
upon him to establish the facts on which that matter is
Corsino B. Soco for Aying Heirs.
predicated and if he fails to do so, the plaintiff is entitled to a
verdict or decision in his favor. In the case at bar, it was
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
This resolves the petition for review on certiorari seeking unregistered land), and since then, petitioner had been
the modification of the Decision of the Court of Appeals
1 religiously paying real property taxes on said property.
(CA) dated March 7, 2000 which affirmed with In 1988, herein petitioner filed a Petition for
modification the Decision of the Regional Trial Court Reconstitution of the Original Title as the original title
(RTC) of Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 27 in Civil Case No. over the subject property had been lost during the war.
2930-L; and the Resolution dated August 2, 2000 denying On April 12, 1988, the court granted said petition, thereby
petitioners motion for reconsideration of the directing the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to issue
aforementioned decision. a reconstituted title in the name of the abovementioned
_______________ Aying siblings. Thus, Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
1 Penned by Associate Justice Bernardo Ll. Salas (retired), with former Presiding
No. RO-2856 was issued.
Justice Salome A. Montoya (retired) and Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco (now In 1991, petitioner, claiming to be the rightful owner of
Court Administrator), concurring.
501
the subject property, sent out notices to vacate, addressed
VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 501 to persons occupying the property. Unheeded, petitioner
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying then filed a complaint for ejectment against the occupants
The antecedent facts are as follows: before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC), Lapu-Lapu
The disputed property is Lot No. 4399 with an area of City.
34,325 square meters located at Dapdap, Lapu-Lapu City. On February 1, 1994, the MTC ordered the occupants
Crisanta Maloloy-on petitioned for the issuance of a to vacate the property. The case eventually reached this
cadastral decree in her favor over said parcel of land. Court, docketed as G.R. No. 128102, entitled Aznar
After her death in 1930, the Cadastral Court issued a Brothers Realty
502
Decision directing the issuance of a decree in the name of 502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Crisanta Maloloy-ons eight children, namely: Juan,
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
Celedonio, Emiliano, Francisco, Simeon, Bernabe, Roberta
Company vs. Court of Appeals, Luis Aying, Demetrio Sida,
and Fausta, all surnamed Aying. The certificate of title
Felomino Augusto, Federico Abing, and Romeo
was, however, lost during the war.
Augusto. On March 7, 2000, a Decision was promulgated
2

Subsequently, all the heirs of the Aying siblings

in favor of herein petitioner, declaring it as the rightful
executed an Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with
possessor of the parcel of land in question.
Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 3, 1964, conveying the
Meanwhile, herein respondents, along with other
subject parcel of land to herein petitioner Aznar Brothers
persons claiming to be descendants of the eight Aying
Realty Company. Said deed was registered with the
siblings, all in all numbering around 220 persons, had
Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City on March 6, 1964
filed a complaint for cancellation of the Extrajudicial
under Act No. 3344 (the law governing registration for
Partition with Absolute Sale, recovery of ownership, Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
injunction and damages with the RTC of Lapu-Lapu City. supposedly signed said document had been dead at the
The complaint was dismissed twice without prejudice. time of the execution thereof; petitioner entered subject
Said complaint was re-filed on August 19, 1993, docketed land in bad faith, knowing fully well that it did not have
as Civil Case No. 2930-L. any right to the land and used force, threat and
In their amended complaint, herein respondents intimidation against respondents; and they suffered moral
(plaintiffs before the RTC) alleged that: they are co- damages. 3

owners of subject property, being descendants of the Petitioner (defendant before the RTC) filed its Answer,
registered owners thereof under OCT No. RO-2856; they denying that respondents are the lawful owners of subject
had been in actual, peaceful, physical, open, adverse, parcel of land by virtue of their being descendants or heirs
continuous and uninterrupted possession in concept of of the registered owners of subject property. Instead,
owner of subject parcel of land since time immemorial; petitioner alleged that it had been in actual possession of
their possession was disturbed only in the last quarter of subject land as owner thereof by virtue of the extrajudicial
1991 when some of them received notices to vacate from partition of real property and deed of absolute sale
petitioner and several weeks thereafter, earthmoving executed in its favor; that in fact, it had been paying taxes
equipment entered the disputed land, bulldozing the same thereon religiously; that it tolerated about 6 persons to
and destroying plants, trees and concrete monuments live on said land but said persons were eventually ejected
(mohon); respondents discovered that such activities by court order. Petitioner then raised the affirmative
were being undertaken by petitioner together with Sta. defenses of failure to state cause of action and
Lucia Realty and Development, Inc.; petitioner claimed to prescription, as it took respondents 27 years, 10 months
be the owner of subject property by virtue of an and 27 days to file the action to recover subject property,
extrajudicial partition of real estate with deed of absolute when an action to recover property based on an implied
sale executed in petitioners favor by the alleged heirs of trust should be instituted within 4 years from discovery of
Crisanta Maloloy-on; the aforementioned extrajudicial the fraud. 4

partition of real estate with deed of absolute sale is a In the Pre-Trial Order dated January 30, 1995 of the
fraud and is null and void ab initio because not all the co- RTC, the issues were narrowed down to the following:
owners of subject property affixed their signatures on said
document and some of the co-owners who 1. 1.Whether or not the plaintiffs [herein respondents]
_______________
are the heirs of the registered owners of Lot No.
2 G.R. No. 128102, March 7, 2000, 327 SCRA 359. 4399.
503 2. 2.Whether or not plaintiffs are the owners of Lot
VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 503 No. 4399.
 3. 3.Whether or not the defendant Aznar [herein from the registration of the deed on March 6, 1964; and if
petitioner] is estopped to make any claim on Lot the action is considered as one for annulment of contract
No. 4399. on the ground of fraud, it should have been filed within 4
4. 4.Whether or not the defendant Aznar is a builder years from discovery of the fraud. The trial court also
in bad faith. ruled that respondents failed to present any admissible
5. 5.Whether or not the defendants are liable for proof of filiation, hence, they were not able to prove that
damages and attorneys fees in favor of the they are indeed heirs of the eight Aying siblings who
plaintiffs. appear as the registered owners under OCT No. RO-2856.
The dispositive portion of the RTC Decision reads as
_______________
follows:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered dismissing the amended
3See Amended Complaint, pp. 45-57, Records, Vol. 1.
complaint on the ground of prescription, and declaring the Extrajudicial
4See Answer, appearing after page 193 of the Records, Vol. 1. Said pleading bears
no pagination. Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale dated March 3, 1964 as
504 valid and binding, adjudging that Lot 4399 with an area of 34,325 square
meters located at Dapdap, Mactan, Lapu-Lapu City had been validly
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED conveyed to and in favor of Aznar Brothers Realty Company, and directing
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying the Register of Deeds of Lapu-Lapu City to register the above-mentioned deed
in accordance with law and to cancel Original Certificate of Title No. RO-
2856, and to issue a transfer certificate of title in the name of Aznar Brothers
1. 6.Whether or not the Extrajudicial Partition of Real Realty Company upon payment of the necessary registration fees pursuant
Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale is valid and thereto.
_______________
had, in effect, validly conveyed to defendant Aznar
Lot No. 4399. 5 Pre-Trial Order, p. 208, Records, Vol. 1.
2. 7.Whether or not the plaintiffs action has 505
prescribed. 5 VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 505
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
After trial, the RTC rendered a Decision dated July 4, The Writ of Preliminary Injunction issued in this case is hereby ordered
dissolved.
1997, ruling that respondents evidence failed to prove The Motion for Contempt filed by the plaintiffs against defendants is
that the extrajudicial partition with deed of absolute sale dismissed for want of factual and legal basis.
was a totally simulated or fictitious contract and Costs against the plaintiffs.
SO ORDERED.
concluded that said document is valid, thus, effectively
6

Herein respondents appealed the foregoing decision to the

conveying to petitioner the property in question. It further
CA and on March 7, 2000, said court promulgated its
held that respondents action had prescribed in that the
Decision, the dispositive portion of which is reproduced
action is considered as one for reconveyance based on
hereunder:
implied or constructive trust, it prescribed in 10 years
THE FOREGOING CONSIDERED, the contested Decision while Hence, the present petition for review
AFFIRMED is hereby MODIFIED. The heirs of Emiliano Aying, Simeon
Aying and Roberta Aying are hereby declared as the lawful owners of the on certiorariassailing the CA decision on the following
contested property but equivalent only to 3/8. grounds:
SO ORDERED. I
In modifying the RTC judgment, the CA ratiocinated that
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE RULE
an action for recovery of possession of registered land THAT AN HEIR OF THE ORIGINAL REGISTERED OWNER MAY LOSE
never prescribes in view of the provision of Section 44, Act HIS RIGHT TO RECOVER A TITLED PROPERTY BY REASON OF
No. 496 (now Sec. 47, PD 1520), to the effect that no title LACHES;
to registered land in derogation to that of a registered
II
owner shall be acquired by prescription. The CA further
ruled that even if the action is deemed to be based on THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE
implied trust, prescription did not begin to run since there RULE THAT THE ACT OF REGISTRATION OF THE DEED OF
PARTITION WITH SALE MAY BE CONSIDERED AN UNEQUIVOCAL
is no evidence that positive acts of repudiation were made REPUDIATION OF THE TRUST GIVING RISE TO PRESCRIPTION;
known to the heirs who did not participate in the
execution of the Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate III
with Deed of Absolute Sale. Thus, striking down the
THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN FAILING TO APPLY THE
RTCs ruling that the respondents complaint is PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 1104 OF THE CIVIL CODE TO THE EFFECT
dismissible on the ground of prescription, the CA held THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BAD FAITH OR FRAUD, THE PARTITION
instead that herein respondents action had not prescribed WITH PRETERITION OF ANY COMPULSORY HEIR SHALL NOT BE
RESCINDED.
but upheld the validity of the Extrajudicial Partition of
7

In their Comment, respondents argue that this case is an

Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale, except as to the action to declare as null and void the Extrajudicial
shares of the heirs of Emiliano, Simeon and Roberta, who Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale,
did not participate in the execution of said document. hence, under Article 1410 of the Civil Code, an action for
_______________
declaration of an inexistent contract does not prescribe.
6 Rollo, p. 57. Respondents further posit that the principle of laches
506
should be applied against petitioner and not against
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
them, as they (respondents) had been in actual possession
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
of the subject property, while petitioner merely brought
Herein petitioners motion for reconsideration of the CA action to eject them more than 29 years after the alleged
decision was denied per Resolution dated August 2, 2000. execution of the Extrajudicial Partition of
_______________

7 Rollo, p. 23.
 507 null and void. We agree with the ruling of the RTC and
VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 507 the CA that the Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying with Deed of Absolute Sale is valid and binding only as to
Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale. They also refuted the heirs who participated in the execution thereof, hence,
petitioners arguments regarding the application of the the heirs of Emiliano, Simeon and Roberta Aying, who
principles of implied and constructive trusts in this case. undisputedly did not participate therein, cannot be bound
At the outset, it should be stressed that not all the by said document.
plaintiffs who filed the amended complaint before the trial However, the facts on record show that petitioner
court had been impleaded as respondents in the present acquired the entire parcel of land with the mistaken belief
petition. The only parties impleaded are the heirs of that all the heirs have executed the subject document.
Emiliano, Simeon and Roberta Aying, whom the CA Thus, the trial
adjudged as owners of a 3/8 portion of the land in dispute 508
for not having participated in the execution of the 508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
Absolute Sale. court is correct that the provision of law applicable to this
It is significant to note that herein petitioner does not case is Article 1456 of the Civil Code which states:
question the CA conclusion that respondents are heirs of ART. 1456. 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
the aforementioned three Aying siblings. Hence, the trial benefit of the person from whom the property comes.
court and appellate courts findings that the Extrajudicial In Vda. de Esconde vs. Court of Appeals, the Court 8

Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was expounded thus:
not forged nor simulated and that the heirs of Emiliano, Construing this provision of the Civil Code, in Philippine National Bank v.
Simeon and Roberta Aying did not participate in the Court of Appeals, the Court stated:
A deeper analysis of Article 1456 reveals that it is not a trust in the technical sense for
execution thereof, are now beyond cavil. in a typical trust, confidence is reposed in one person who is named a trustee for the
The issues raised by petitioner for the Courts benefit of another who is called the cestui que trust, respecting property which is held
by the trustee for the benefit of the cestui que trust. A constructive trust, unlike an
resolution are (1) whether or not respondents cause of express trust, does not emanate from, or generate a fiduciary relation. While in an
action is imprescriptible; and (2) if their right to bring express trust, a beneficiary and a trustee are linked by confidential or fiduciary
relations, in a constructive trust, there is neither a promise nor any fiduciary relation
action is indeed imprescriptible, may the principle of to speak of and the so-called trustee neither accepts any trust nor intends holding the
laches apply. property for the beneficiary.9

Respondents alleged in their amended complaint that The concept of constructive trusts was further elucidated
not all the co-owners of the land in question signed or in the same case, as follows:
. . . implied trusts are those which, without being expressed, are deducible
executed the document conveying ownership thereof to from the nature of the transaction as matters of intent or which are
petitioner and made the conclusion that said document is superinduced on the transaction by operation of law as matters of equity,
independently of the particular intention of the parties. In turn, implied 10 Id., at pp. 73-74.
trusts are either resulting or constructive trusts. These two are differentiated 11 Id., at pp. 75-76.
12 No. L-33261, September 30, 1987, 154 SCRA 396.
from each other as follows:
Resulting trusts are based on the equitable doctrine that valuable consideration and 510
not legal title determines the equi- 510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
_______________
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
8 G.R. No. 103635, February 1, 1996, 253 SCRA 66. Article 1144. The following actions must be brought within ten years from the
9
Id., at p. 74. time the right of action accrues:
509
VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 509 1. (1)Upon a written contract;
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying 2. (2)Upon an obligation created by law;
table title or interest and are presumed always to have been contemplated by the 3. (3)Upon a judgment.
parties. They arise from the nature of circumstances of the consideration involved in a
transaction whereby one person thereby becomes invested with legal title but is xxx xxx xxx
obligated in equity to hold his legal title for the benefit of another. On the other
An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
hand, constructive trusts are created by the construction of equity in order to
satisfy the demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise must perforce prescribe in ten years and not otherwise. A long line of
contrary to intention against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of decisions of this Court, and of very recent vintage at that, illustrates this
confidence, obtains or holds the legal right to property which he ought not, in rule. Undoubtedly, it is now well-settled that an action for reconveyance
equity and good conscience, to hold. (Emphasis supplied)
10 based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years from the
Based on such concept of constructive trusts, the Court issuance of the Torrens title over the property. 13

ruled in said case that: It has also been ruled that the ten-year prescriptive
The rule that a trustee cannot acquire by prescription ownership over period begins to run from the date of registration of the
property entrusted to him until and unless he repudiates the trust, applies to deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title
express trusts and resulting implied trusts. However, in constructive implied
trusts, prescription may supervene even if the trustee does not repudiate the over the property, but if the person claiming to be the
relationship. Necessarily, repudiation of said trust is not a condition owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, the
precedent to the running of the prescriptive period. 11
right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet
The next question is, what is the applicable prescriptive title to the property, does not prescribe. 14

period? In the present case, respondents Wenceslao Sumalinog,

In Amerol vs. Bagumbaran, the Court expounded on 12
an heir of Roberta Aying; Laurencio Aying, an heir of
the prescriptive period within which to bring an action for Emiliano Aying; and Paulino Aying, an heir of Simeon
reconveyance of property based on implied or constructive Aying, all testified that they had never occupied or been
trust, to wit: in possession of the land in dispute. Hence, the 15

. . . under the present Civil Code, we find that just as an implied or

constructive trust is an offspring of the law (Art. 1456, Civil Code), so is the prescriptive period of ten years would apply to herein
corresponding obligation to reconvey the property and the title thereto in respondents.
favor of the true owner. In this context, and vis--vis prescription, Article The question then arises as to the date from which the
1144 of the Civil Code is applicable.
_______________ ten-year period should be reckoned, considering that the
Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of
Absolute Sale was registered under Act No. 3344 and not Absolute Sale.
under Act No. 496 The only evidence on record as to when such
_______________ prescriptive period commenced as to each of the
13 Id., at pp. 406-407. respondents are Wenceslao Sumalinogs (heir of Roberta
14 Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 104813, October 21, 1993, 227 Aying) testimony that about three years after 1964, they
SCRA 330.
15 See TSN of September 29, 1995, p. 11; TSN of November 28, 1995, p. 8; TSN of
already learned of the existence of the Extrajudicial
February 16, 1996, p. 25. Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale; and 19

511 Laurencio Ayings (heir of Emiliano Aying) admission that

VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 511
he found out about the sale of the land in dispute a long
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying time ago and can only estimate that it
(Land Registration Act), despite the fact the land in _______________
dispute was already titled under Act No. 496 in the names 16 G.R. No. 154409, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 544.
of the Aying siblings at the time the subject document was 17 Spouses Abrigo vs. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409, June 21, 2004, 432 SCRA 544,
executed. citing Soriano v. Heirs of Magali, 8 SCRA 489 (1963).
18 Paras, Civil Code of the Philippines Annotated (1990), Vol. V, p. 154.

In Spouses Abrigo vs. De Vera, it was held that 16

19 TSN of September 29, 1995, p. 10.

registration of instruments must be done in the proper 512

registry, in order to affect and bind the land and, thus, 512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
operate as constructive notice to the world. Therein, the 17 Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying
Court ruled: must be after martial law. Paulino Aying (heir of Simeon
20

x x x If the land is registered under the Land Registration Act (and has Aying) gave no testimony whatsoever as to when the
therefore a Torrens Title), and it is sold but the subsequent sale is registered
not under the Land Registration Act but under Act 3344, as amended, such children of Simeon Aying actually learned of the existence
sale is not considered REGISTERED x x x . 18 of the document of sale. On the other hand, petitioner did
In this case, since the Extrajudicial Partition of Real not present any other evidence to prove the date when
Estate with Deed of Absolute Sale was registered under respondents were notified of the execution of the subject
Act No. 3344 and not under Act No. 496, said document is document.
deemed not registered. Accordingly, the ten-year In view of the lack of unambiguous evidence of when
prescriptive period cannot be reckoned from March 6, the heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon Aying discovered
1964, the date of registration of the subject document the existence of the document of sale, it must be
under Act No. 3344. The prescriptive period only began to determined which party had the burden of proof to
run from the time respondents had actual notice of the establish such fact.
 The test for determining where the burden of proof lies year 1967. As to the heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon
is to ask which party to an action or suit will fail if he Aying, there is no clear evidence of the date when they
offers no evidence competent to show the facts averred as discovered the document conveying the subject land to
the basis for the relief he seeks to obtain. Moreover, one 21 petitioner. Petitioner miserably failed to adduce proof of
alleging a fact that is denied has the burden of proving it when the heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon Aying were
and unless the party asserting the affirmative of an issue notified of the subject document. Hence, with regard to
sustains the burden of proof of that issue by a said heirs, the Court may consider the admission in the
preponderance of the evidence, his cause will not amended complaint that they learned of the conveyance of
succeed. Thus, the defendant bears the burden of proof as
22 the disputed land only in 1991 when petitioner sent
to all affirmative defenses which he sets up in answer to notices to vacate to the occupants of the subject land, as
the plaintiffs claim or cause of action; he being the party the date from which the ten-year prescriptive period
who asserts the truth of the matter he has alleged, the should be reckoned.
burden is upon him to establish the facts on which that Respondents filed their Amended Complaint on
matter is predicated and if he fails to do so, the plaintiff is December 6, 1993. Thus, with regard to respondent heirs
24

entitled to a verdict or decision in his favor. 23 of Roberta Aying who had knowledge of the conveyance as
In the case at bar, it was petitioner, as the defendant far back as 1967, their cause of action is already barred by
before the RTC, which set up in its Answer the prescription when said amended complaint was filed as
affirmative defense of prescription. It was, therefore, they only had until 1977 within which to bring action. As
incumbent upon petitioner to prove the date from which to the respondent heirs of Emiliano and Simeon Aying,
the prescriptive period began to run. Evidence as to the they were able to initiate their action for reconveyance of
date when the ten-year prescriptive period began exists property based on implied or constructive trust well
only as to the heirs of Roberta within the ten-year prescriptive period reckoned from
_______________ 1991 when they were sent by petitioner a notice to vacate
20 TSN of November 28, 1995, p. 10. the subject property.
21 Republic vs. Vda. de Neri, G.R. No. 139588, March 4, 2004, 424 SCRA 676. Evidently, laches cannot be applied against respondent
22 20 Am. Jur. 138-139.

23 Francisco, The Revised Rules of Court in the Philippines, Vol. VII, Part II, 1997
heirs of Emiliano and Simeon Aying, as they took action
ed., p. 7. to protect their interest well within the period accorded
513 them by law.
VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 513
With regard to petitioners argument that the provision
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying of Article 1104 of the Civil Code, stating that a partition
Aying, as Wenceslao Sumalinog admitted that they made with preterition of any of the compulsory heirs shall
learned of the existence of the document of sale in the not be rescinded, should be applied, suffice it to say that
the Extra-Judicial Partition of Real Estate with Deed of Notes.Insofar as third persons are concerned, what
Absolute Sale is not being rescinded. In fact, its validity could validly transfer or convey a persons interest in a
had been upheld but property is the registration of the deed of sale and not of
_______________ the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition which only mentions
24 See Record, Vol. 1, p. 42. the former. (Vda. de Alcantara vs. Court of Appeals, 252
514 SCRA 457 [1996])
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Where the main issue to be resolved is the authenticity
Aznar Brothers Realty Company vs. Aying of the Deed of Extrajudicial Partition and Settlement, the
only as to the parties who participated in the execution of same partakes of a question of fact rather than of law.
the same. As discussed above, what was conveyed to (Reyes vs. Court of Appeals, 258 SCRA 651 [1996])
petitioner was ownership over the shares of the heirs who The Statute of Frauds under Article 1403 of the New
executed the subject document. Thus, the law, Civil Code does not apply to an extrajudicial partition
particularly, Article 1456 of the Civil Code, imposed the among heirs
obligation upon petitioner to act as a trustee for the 515
benefit of respondent heirs of Emiliano and Simeon Aying VOL. 458, MAY 16, 2005 515
who, having brought their action within the prescriptive Lopez Sugar Corporation vs. Franco
period, are now entitled to the reconveyance of their share for it is not legally deemed a conveyance of real property,
in the land in dispute. considering that it involves not a transfer of property from
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the petition is one to the other but rather, a confirmation or ratification
PARTIALLY GRANTED and the Decision of the Court of of title or right of property that an heir in renouncing in
Appeals dated March 7, 2000 is MODIFIED, as follows: favor of another heir who accepts and receives the
The amended complaint of the heirs of Roberta Aying is inheritance. (Castro vs. Miat, 397 SCRA 271 [2003])
DISMISSED on the ground of prescription. However, the
heirs of Emiliano Aying and Simeon Aying, having
instituted the action for reconveyance within the
prescriptive period, are hereby DECLARED as the
LAWFUL OWNERS of a 2/8 portion of the parcel of land
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-2856.
SO ORDERED.
Puno (Chairman), Callejo, Sr., Tinga and Chico-
Nazario, JJ., concur.
Petition partially granted, judgment modified.