G.R. No. 271635 - ADELFA ALCANTARA ASICO AND ANNIEROSE ALCANTARA ASICO, VS. HEIRS OF ERNESTO SEE NAMELY: EDNA SEE-PORNEL, MARY ANNE SEE-HILARIO, MARY GRACE C. SEE, AND MARY JANE SEE-TAN• AND THE REGISTER OF DEEDS OF NEGROS OCCIDENTAL.

Ruling

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Demurrer to Evidence [filed] by the defendant[s (respondents See)] is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, this case is hereby ordered DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence." [7] The CA Ruling Petitioners appealed the RTC Order to the CA. In the assailed Decision, the CA denied the appeal based on two grounds: prescription and lack of merit. Regarding prescription, the CA took the position that, pursuant to Article 1456 [8] of the Civil Code, a person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of law, a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner of the property, and, just as an implied or constructive trust is an offspring of the law, so is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the property and the title thereto in favor of the owner. [9] The CA pointed out that the prescriptive period of 10 years applies to an action upon an obligation created by law as provided in Article 1144(2) [10] of the same Code. [11] Correlating paragraph 3, Section 53 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 [12] or the Property Registration Decree, which provides: "[i]n all cases of registration procured by fraud, the owner may pursue all his legal and equitable remedies against the parties to such fraud without prejudice, however, to the rights of any innocent holder for value of a certificate of title. After the entry of the decree of registration on the original petition or application, any subsequent registration procured by the presentation of a forged duplicate certificate of title, or a forged deed or other instrument, shall be null and void" and Article 1456 and Article 1144(2) of the Civil Code, the CA concluded that an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust or constructive trust prescribes in 10 years, and the reference point of the prescriptive period is the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the title. [13] However, the CA recognized that the only exception to the above rule is when the plaintiff is in actual possession of the subject land, in which case the action for reconveyance does not prescribe. [14] The CA noted that, in this case, TCT No. T-139809 was issued in the name of Ernesto in 1987 and petitioners filed the complaint for nullification of the title in 2017. With the admission by Adelfa during the trial that a certain Mr. Perido, Mr. Artesuno, and other unnamed persons were occupying the subject property, the CA found that the instant action, having been filed in 2017 or after the lapse of 30 years, was filed beyond the 10-year prescriptive period and is already barred by prescription. [15] As to the other ground, lack of cause of action, the CA posited that, assuming for argument's sake that the instant action has yet to prescribe, it must fail for lack of merit. [16] The CA essentially relied on the following factual bases in support of such finding: (1) Contrary to petitioners' claim that the deed of sale was inexistent, the CA stated that a perusal of the rec