Estrella TIONGCO v. John B. TIONGCO Facts

Estrella TIONGCO v. John B.
TIONGCO
FACTS:
1. Matilde, Jose, Vicente, and Felipe, all surnamed Tiongco, were born to Atanacio and Maria Luis
Tiongco. Together they were known as the Heirs of Maria Luis de Tiongco.
2. Dispute involves 3 parcels of land – lot 3244, 3246, 1404 all located in Iloilo.
a. 3244 and 1404 used to be covered by 2 OCTs each lot in the names of Matilde, Jose,
Vicente and Felipe - each has undivided share of ¼
b. 3246 – covered by OCT in the name of “HEIRS OF MARIA LUIS DE TIONGCO”
3. Kana silang upat kay namatay na. survived by their children. Kani si Estrella (petitioner) anak ni
ni Jose. Nya bogo kaayo kay ang respondent diri kay pamangkin ni Estrella. Anak sa iyang igsoon.
Nya Jose pod ang name sa pamangkin. ☹ Jose B. nalang ato i tawag niya.
4. Sometime in 1965 – Estrella built her house in 1404. Nangolekta pd og rentals sa tenants sa lots
3244 and 3246.
5. Estrella filed adverse claim over rights of her father sa disputed lots. – annotated sa 2 OCTs
6. 1983 – Jose B prohibited Estrella from collecting rentals sa tenants
7. December 1983, Jose B filed a suit for recovery of possession with preliminary injunction against
several tenants of Lots 3244 and 3246 wherein he obtained a judgment in his favor.
8. Jose B also filed a case for unlawful detainer against Estrella as she was staying on Lot 1404.
a. RTC ruled in Jose's favor, CA reversed the RTC's decision
b. Thus, Jose B never took possession of the properties.
9. Estrella inquired sa ROD, na shock sya kay Jose B already executed Affidavit of Adjudication nga
sya ra kunoy surviving heir. Tanan OCT na cancel, na transfer sa iyang name through TCT
10. Jose B’s gaming:
a. 3244 and 1404 – sold to Catalino; 3246- sold to Doronila
b. Catalino sold lots to Doronila. DORONILA SOLD LOTS BACK TO JOSE B. This happened
like within a week when TCT’s were transferred to Jose B. Pa libog libog ra.
11. Estrella filed complaint against Jose B, etc. praying for reconveyance.
a. Namakak sa Affidavit kay khibaw sya naa pay other heirs. – thus void ang affidavit! Void
ang transfer! Mere trustee si Jose B!
12. Jose B’s response: papa ni Estrella not an heir. Lol. Sya ra daw legitimate heir. Sya daw tigbayad
og real prop tax, nya mere tolerance ra daw tong gisugtan niya si Estrella mu collect og rentals.
13. RTC ruled in favor of Joe B. – prescription set in. 16 yrs lapsed after Jose B registered land.
14. CA – sustained RTC ruling. Reconveyance based on fraud is 4 yrs from discovery – such discovery
is deemed to have taken place from the issuance of the OCT/TCT.
a. On the other hand, an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust
prescribes in 10 yrs from the date of issuance of the OCT/TCT. Constructive notice!
ISSUE: WON Estrella’s action for reconveyance is barred by prescription
HELD: NO!
1. An action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust must perforce prescribe in
ten (10) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property.
2. However, there is an exception to this rule.
3. In the case of Heirs of Pomposa Saludares v. Court of Appeals, 27 the Court reiterating the ruling
in Millena v. Court of Appeals, 28 held that:
a. there is but one instance when prescription cannot be invoked in an action for
reconveyance, that is, when the plaintiff is in possession of the land to be reconveyed –
reconveyance when based on fraud, is imprescriptible as long as the land has not
passed to an innocent buyer for value. But in all those cases, the common factual
backdrop was that the registered owners were never in possession of the disputed
property. The exception was based on the theory that registration proceedings could
not be used as a shield for fraud or for enriching a person at the expense of another.
4. Moreover - Court ruled that prescription of an action for reconveyance based on implied or
constructive trust does not run against the plaintiff in actual possession of the disputed land
because such plaintiff has a right to wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is
questioned before initiating an action to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives
him the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to determine the nature of the
adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his title.
5. The Court held that where the plaintiff in an action for reconveyance remains in possession of
the subject land, the action for reconveyance becomes in effect an action to quiet title to
property, which is not subject to prescription.
6. In effect, the action for reconveyance is an action to quiet the property title, which does not
prescribe. (TAKE NOTE MGA BABES!)
7. In such a situation, the right to quiet title to the property, to seek its reconveyance and annul
any certificate of title covering it, accrued only from the time the one in possession was made
aware of a claim adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period of prescription
commences to run against such possessor.
APPLICATION:
In this case, petitioner's possession was disturbed in 1983 when Jose B filed a case for recovery
of possession. CA ruled in favor of Estrella. Thus, Estrella never lost possession of the said properties,
and as such, she is in a position to file the complaint with the court a quo to protect her rights and clear
whatever doubts has been cast on her title by the issuance of TCTs in respondent Jose's name.
Jose B and his kasabwats are not buyers in good faith. Obvious kaayo.
Side note: exception sa mirror doctrine sa Torrens title
The exception is when the party has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would impel a
reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry or when the purchaser has some knowledge of a defect
or the lack of title in his vendor or of sufficient facts to induce a reasonably prudent man to inquire into
the status of the title of the property in litigation. The presence of anything which excites or arouses
suspicion should then prompt the vendee to look beyond the certificate and investigate the title of the
vendor appearing on the face of said certificate. One who falls within the exception can neither be
denominated an innocent purchaser for value nor a purchaser in good faith and hence does not merit
the protection of the law. – note, while ga baligya baligya kunuhay sila, Jose was not in possession, so
that must have put Catalino and Doronila on guard.

Estrella TIONGCO v. John B. TIONGCO Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrella TIONGCO v. John B. TIONGCO Facts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrella TIONGCO v. John B. TIONGCO Facts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Estrella TIONGCO v. John B.

ISSUE: WON Estrella’s action for reconveyance is barred by prescription

Side note: exception sa mirror doctrine sa Torrens title

You might also like