G.R. No. 160556 - TEOFILO BAUTISTA, REPRESENTED BY FRANCISCO MUÑOZ, ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, VS. ALEGRIA BAUTISTA, ANGELICA BAUTISTA, PRISCILLA BAUTISTA, GILBERT BAUTISTA, JIM BAUTISTA, GLENDA BAUTISTA, GUEN BAUTISTA, GELACIO BAUTISTA, GRACIA BAUTISTA, PEDRO S. TANDOC AND CESAR TAMONDONG.D E C I S I O N -

Ruling

WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered: Declaring as null and void and of no force and effect the following documents : Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition dated April 21, 1981; Deed of Absolute Sale [d]ated May 14, 1981; Transfer Certificate of Title No. 18777; Tax Declaration Nos. 59941, 45999, and 46006; Deed of Absolute Sale dated April 13, 1993; Ordering the partition of the land in question among the compulsory heirs of the late Spouses Isidro Bautista and Teodora Rosario Ordering defendants Cesar Tamondong and Pedro Tandoc to vacate the premises . No pronouncement[s] as to cost. [14] (Underscoring supplied) On appeal by Pedro and Cesar Tamondong, the Court of Appeals, by Decision [15] of February 21, 2003, reversed and set aside the trial court's decision and dismissed Teofilo's complaint on the ground of prescription. [16] His Motion for Reconsideration [17] having been denied, [18] Teofilo filed the present Petition for Review on Certiorari. [19] The petition is impressed with merit. The Court of Appeals, in holding that prescription had set in, reasoned: Unquestionably, the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition is invalid insofar as it affects the legitimate share pertaining to the defendant-appellee in the property in question. There can be no question that the Deed of Extra-judicial Partition was fraudulently obtained. Hence, an action to set it aside on the ground of fraud could be instituted. Such action for the annulment of the said partition, however, must be brought within four years from the discovery of the fraud . Significantly, it cannot be denied, either, that by its registration in the manner provided by law, a transaction may be known actually or constructively. In the present case, defendant-appellee is deemed to have been constructively notified of the extra-judicial settlement by reason of its registration and annotation in the certificate of title over the subject lot on December 21, 1981. From the time of its registration, defendant-appellee had four (4) years or until 21 December 1985, within which to file his objections or to demand the appropriate settlement of the estate . Unfortunately, defendant-appellee failed to institute the present civil action within said period, having filed the same only on 17 January 1994 or more than twelve (12) years from the registration of the deed of extra-judicial partition. Hence, defendant-appellee's right to question the deed of extra-judicial partition has prescribed. Even on the extreme assumption that defendant-appellee's complaint in Civil Case No. SC-1797 is an action for reconveyance of a portion of the property which rightfully belongs to him based upon an implied trust resulting from fraud, said remedy is already barred by prescription. An action of reconveyance of land based upon an implied or constructive trust prescribes after ten years from the registration of the deed or from the issuance of the title. x x x x The complaint of defendant-appellee wa