SUSANA LUCILA BARLETA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, VS. LORENZO V. RODRIGUEZ, AS TRUSTEE OF THE ESTATE OF MARGARITA RODRIGUEZ, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND HIGHWAYS, DEFENDANT…

Barleta versus Rodriguez

The Case

This is an appeal by Susan Lucila Barleta against Lorenzo Rodriguez, as trustee of the estate of Margarita Rodriguez, and the Department of Public Works and Highways. Barleta sued for conveyance of property, claiming that the land registered in Margarita's name was part of her inheritance from her grandfather, Luis Barleta, and that Margarita had obtained the title through fraud and breach of trust. The case matters because it fixes the prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance of fraudulently registered land, and the exception to that period, in a way every examinee must be able to state cold.

Procedural History

Barleta filed her complaint for conveyance of property, with an application for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, before the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 56. The trial court dismissed the complaint on the ground of prescription. Barleta appealed directly to the Supreme Court, insisting that the trial court erred in dismissing her complaint on that ground. The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the dismissal.

Facts

Luis Barleta died in 1919. He owned a parcel of land, Lot 1180, with an area of 294,383 square meters, located in Castanas, Sariaya, Quezon, covered by Decree Number 151883. The property was administered by Margarita Rodriguez. According to Barleta, Margarita, through fraud and breach of trust, registered the property in her own name and obtained Original Certificate of Title Number 4587.

Margarita was in continuous possession of the property from 1924 until her death in 1960, and her heirs and estate paid the real estate taxes. Barleta says she discovered in 1998 that the land was part of her inheritance. Yet she filed her complaint only in 2010, after the Department of Public Works and Highways began a road project over a portion of the lot and moved to pay just compensation to Margarita's estate.

The estate answered that Margarita was the absolute and lawful owner, that there was no fraud in her title, and that the action had long prescribed, the title having been issued in 1924. The Department of Public Works and Highways moved to dismiss for lack of cause of action. The trial court dismissed the complaint on prescription, and Barleta appealed.

Issues

• Whether or not an action for reconveyance of land fraudulently registered in another's name is imprescriptible.
• Whether or not the ten-year prescriptive period for reconveyance, reckoned from the issuance of the certificate of title, applies to Barleta.
• Whether or not Barleta is guilty of laches.

Applicable Provisions

The decision does not quote a statutory text; it applies the settled rule on reconveyance, which the Court states as follows:

An action for reconveyance is a legal remedy granted to a landowner whose property has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another's name, but then the action must be filed within ten years from the issuance of the title since such issuance operates as a constructive notice.

This rule fixes the period within which Barleta had to sue, counted from the registration of the title in Margarita's name.

The Court also states the exception to that period:

Our jurisprudence abounds with iterations that the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession, but imprescriptible if he is in possession of the property.

This exception is what Barleta invoked, and its requirements decide the case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that an action for reconveyance is not imprescriptible. The evidence belied Barleta's stance. An action for reconveyance based on fraud must be filed within ten years from discovery of the fraud, which, as to titled lands, refers to the registration of the title with the register of deeds. The issuance of the title operates as constructive notice.

On the second issue, the Court applied the ten-year period. Original Certificate of Title Number 4587 was issued to Margarita in 1924, but Barleta sought recovery only in 2010. The exception was wanting because Barleta failed to establish that she was in actual possession of the property. The Court explained the reason for the exception: one in actual possession, claiming to be owner, may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before vindicating his right, and only one in possession can claim that continuing right. Since Barleta was never in possession, the ten-year period ran from the issuance of the title, and her action had long prescribed.

On the third issue, the Court held Barleta guilty of laches, which it defined as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. It quoted the maxim:

Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus, jura subveniunt. The laws aid the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.

Barleta allowed 86 years to pass before questioning Margarita's title. Even on her claim that she discovered the irregularity only in 1998, she waited 12 years before suing in 2010. The Court upheld the trial court's factual findings, which carry great weight absent a strong and cogent reason to the contrary, and found no reversible error.

Doctrine

• An action for reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property prescribes in ten years, reckoned from the date of issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession.
• The action is imprescriptible only if the plaintiff is in actual possession of the property; the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing such possession.
• Issuance of the certificate of title operates as constructive notice, and the ten-year period may be counted from discovery of the fraud, which as to titled lands means the registration of the title.
• Laches is the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time, to do what by due diligence could or should have been done earlier; it bars relief to one who sleeps on his rights.
• Findings of fact of the trial court carry great weight and are entitled to respect on appeal absent a strong and cogent reason to the contrary.

Disposition

The Supreme Court denied the appeal and affirmed the order of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 56, dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.

Remember This

Memorize the rule: reconveyance of fraudulently registered land prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the title if the plaintiff is not in possession, and is imprescriptible only if he is in actual possession. Examiners use this case to test the prescriptive period for reconveyance, the possession exception, and laches.