FAUSTINA CABABARROS VDA. DE NACALABAN, ANDRONICA, TEODITA, GODOFREDO, PROPULO, CALVIN, TARCIANO, OROTON, AND NEVIL, ALL SURNAMED NACALABAN, PETITIONERS, VS. THE HONORABLE COURT …

This is a petition for certiorari to review the decision^[1]
of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 41486-R entitled “Rosita Cababarros, et al., vs. Faustina Vda. de Nacalaban, et al.”
affirming in toto the judgment of the
Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental in Civil
Case No. 2317, the dispositive part of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby rendered
declaring the parcel of land particularly described in the plaintiffs’ amended
complaint as a common hereditary property of the plaintiffs and the defendants
in the above-entitled case and ordering the latter to effect the partition
thereof and to reconvey in favor of the persons
legally entitled thereto their respective lawful shares interests and/or
participation over the same under the following proportions, to wit:

One-sixth (1/6) share to the Heirs of Gerardo Ca­babarros;

One-sixth (1/6) share to the Heirs of Jose Caba­barros;

One-sixth (1/6) share to the Heirs of Felicisimo
Cababarros;

One-sixth (1/6) share to Catalina Cababarros;

One-sixth (1/6) share to the Heirs of Ignacio Cababarros;

The remaining one-sixth (1/6) share shall be retained by the
defendants as their own share.  The de­fendants
are likewise ordered to pay jointly and severally, unto the plaintiffs the sum
of P500.00 as attorney’s fees and to pay the costs.

SO ORDERED.

Done in the city of Cagayan de Oro this
27th day of November, 1967.

(Sgd.)
BENJAMIN K. GOROSPE

J u d g e”^[2]

On February 11, 1964 Rosita, Pruto, Amadeo, Natividad, Adoracion, Alejandria, Lila, and
Josefina, all sur­named Cababarros, and Vivina, Rogelio, Francisco, Gloria, Calinico
and Ciriaco, all surnamed Abejo,
claiming to be heirs of the spouses Narciso Cababarros and Narcisa Edmilao, instituted against Faustina
Vda. de Nacalaban and Godofredo, Propulo, Calvin, Tarciano, Oroton and Nivel, all surnamed Nacalaban,
and Gerardo Cababarros and Catalina Cababarros Civil Case No. 2317 for partition of a parcel of
land and reconveyance of shares therein.

The complaint^[3]
stated that the spouses Narciso Cababarros
and Narcisa Edmilao, during
their lifetime, acquired a certain parcel of land known as Lot No. 1162,
surveyed in the name of Heirs of Narciso Cababarros, situated at Corrales Extension, Telegrapo, Cagayan de Oro City containing an area of 4,082 square meters and
declared in the name of Dioniciano Nacalaban under Tax Declaration No. 16358; that upon the
death of Narciso Cababarros
and Narcisa Edmilao the
said land was transmitted by operation of law to the defendants and the parents
of the plaintiffs; that the property in question being owned in common, was
placed in trust and in the physical possession of defendant Faustina
Vda. de Nacalaban
and her late husband, Dioniciano Nacalaban,
on the understanding that they should deliver the shares of the herein
plaintiffs in case the latter demanded the same; that while the property in
question was in the possession of the defendant Faustina
Vda. de Nacalaban and her
husband Dio­niciano Nacalaban,
the said spouses were able to secure fraudulently a certificate of title in
their names, with­out the consent and knowledge of the plaintiffs; and that
upon knowing of the fraudulent acquisition, the plaintiffs had exerted on
several occasions efforts to demand for their respective shares but the
defendants arrogantly refused and ignored the plaintiffs’ demands.

In their answer^[4]
the defendants alleged that the late spouses Narciso Cababarros and Narcisa Edmilao were not owners anymore of the land subject of this
action long before their deaths and hence could not have transmitted
non-existent rights over the said land which was no longer theirs; that no
trust, express or implied, had ever existed between plaintiffs and defendants;
and that the plaintiffs were fully aware that the spouses Dioniciano
Nacalaban and Faustina Cababarros were issued a torrens
title as proof of their exclusive ownership over the land in question long
before World War II.  They averred as
affirmative defenses that the complaint states no cause of action; that even
assuming that a cause of action exists, the same has already been barred by
prior judgment; and that the same has already been barred by the statute of
limitations or prescription.  The
defendants asked for damages and attorney’s fees.

The defendants-appellants, now petitioners, assign the following
errors:

“I

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN INSTALLING
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS, AS CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND IN SUIT SINCE THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE OF FRAUD TO JUSTIFY THE CREATION OF AN IMPLIED TRUST IN THE CADASTRAL
PROCEEDING WHEREIN O.C.T. NO. 6929 WAS ADJUDICATED AS CONJUGAL PROPERTY OF YOUR
DEFENDANTS PETITIONERS.

II

THE RESPONDENT COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING
PLAINTIFFS-RESPONDENTS’ ACTION BARRED BY PRIOR JUDGMENT AND/OR BY
PRESCRIPTION.”^[5]

The respondents did not file their brief.  Hence they were not able to refute the
arguments of the petitioners.

The record discloses that the spouses Narciso
Cababarros and Narcisa Edmilao acquired the land in question; that said spouses
executed a mortgage over the aforemen­tioned land in favor of Casimiro Tamparong to secure the
payment of the indebtedness of Gerardo Cababarros, a
son of the former; that Narciso Cababarros
and Narcisa Edmi­lao were
unable to pay the indebtedness hence the mortgage was foreclosed; that Casimiro Tamparong acquired the
land in question as a result of the foreclosure proceedings; that the spouses Dioniciano Nacalaban and Faustina Cababarros purchased
said land from Casimiro Tamparong;
that by virtue of the sale in their favor, the said spouses claimed the land in
question in the cadastral proceedings; that as a result, Original Certificate
of Title No. 6929 covering the land was issued by the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental on January 8, 1938 to the spouses Dioniciano Nacalaban and Faustina Cababarros; that the
aforementioned spouses have been in possession as owners of the land in
question continuously, openly and quietly since they bought the same from Casimiro Tamparong until the
present; that they have been paying the taxes on the land regularly; and that
the spouses Dioniciano Nacalaban
and Faustina Cababarros had
mortgaged the property twice to the Philippine National Bank and had sold a
portion thereof to Cagayan de Oro
City for the extension of Corrales Avenue.^[6]

From the facts of record it is clear that when the spouses Narciso Cababarros and Narcisa Edmilao died, they were
no longer owners of the land in question which had been previously acquired by Casimiro Tamparong.  Hence the plaintiffs, private respondents
herein, did not inherit any right on the land in question.

The record also shows that a deed of sale conveying the land in
question was executed by Casimiro Tamparong
in favor of the spouses Dioniciano Nacalaban and Faustina Cababarros.  On the
basis of the deed of sale in their favor, said spouses claimed the land in the
cadastral proceedings and as a consequence Original Certificate of Title No.
6929 of the Registry of Deeds of Misamis Oriental was
issued to them on January 8, 1938.

There is no showing that the petitioners ever recognized the
private respondents as their co-owners of the land in question. Since 1952 the
land in question had been declared for taxation purposes only in the name of Dioniciano Nacalaban.^[7]

The contention of the private respondents that an implied trust
over the land in question existed between them and the petitioners has no
factual and legal basis.  Granting, arguendo, that such an implied trust existed, the
cause of action of the private respondents has prescribed.  Their cause of action arose on January 8, 1938, when Original
Certificate of Title No. 6929 was issued by the Register of Deeds of Misamis Oriental to the spouses Dioniciano
Nacalaban and Faustina Cababarros.  The
issuance of the title was constructive notice to the private respondents.^[8]
Moreover, there is evidence that in 1945 the private respondents had demanded
partition of the land in question and the petitioners refused to comply with
the demand.^[9]

The present action for partition and reconveyance
was commenced only on February 11,
1964, more than ten (10) years from the date the cause of action
arose in 1938.

It is now settled that actions on implied and constructive trusts
are extinguished by laches or prescription of ten
years.^[10]

There is no factual and legal basis for award of damages and
attorney’s fees to the petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is hereby set aside
and the complaint in Civil Case No. 2317 of the Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental is dismissed, without pronouncement as to
costs.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Makasiar, Muñoz Palma, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.

Martin, J., no part.

^[1] Rollo, pp. 20-30. 
The decision was written by Justice Ruperto G.
Martin and concurred in by Justice Emilio A. Gancayco
and Justice Mariano Serrano.

^[2]
Record on Appeal, pp. 40-41, Rollo, p. 31.

^[3] Ibid., pp. 2-6, Rollo,
p. 31.

^[4] Ibid., pp. 7-12, Rollo,
p. 31.

^[5] Brief for defendants-petitioners, p. 8, Rollo,
p. 43.

^[6] Ibid., pp. 4-6, Rollo,
p. 43.

^[7]
Record on Appeal, p. 4 and p. 37, Rollo, p.
31.

^[8] Fermodo vs. Tutaan, 53
SCRA, 505, 509.

^[9] Brief for defendants-petitioners, p. 26, Rollo,
p. 43.

^[10] Varsity Hills, Inc. vs. Navarro, G.R. No. L-30889, February 29, 1972, 43 SCRA
503.