EUSTAQUIO JUAN, ET AL., PLAINTIFFS AND APPELLANTS, VS. VICENTE ZUÑIGA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS AND APPELLEES.

Originally brought to the Court of Appeals wherein printed briefs were
submitted, this record was later forwarded to ua because it involved no factual
issues, the statement of facts in appellants’ brief having been accepted by the
only appellee who has filed a brief, sustaining the appealed decision.

As legitimate heirs of Ines Francisco, the plaintiffs filed this action in
the Bulacan court of first instance to recover her 1/4 pro-indiviso share in Lot
No. 1175 of the Malinta Friar Lands Estate in the municipality of Polo, Bulacan.
The facts as found by the Bulacan court were these:

“1. That on June 27, 1931 Luciana Ciderio died in Polo, Bulacan leaving real
property situated in said municipality, known as Lot 1175 of Malinta Friar Land
Estate with an area of 72,106 square meters, more less, covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No5983 of the land records of Bulacan. Her only heirs at
the time of her death were her legitimate children Ines, Crisanto, Ciriaco and
Bartolome, all suraamed Francisco.

2. On March 31, 1932, Bartolome, Ciriaco and Crisanto, all surnamed Francisco
executed an extra-judicial deed of partition (Escritura de Particion y
Adjudicacion) whereby they stated among other things their deceased mother
Luciana Cideri,o “solo ha dejado a su fallecimiento, a sus unicos hijos
legitimos Crisanto Francisco, Ciriaco Francisco y Bartolome Francisco aqui
otorgantes, como sus unicos herederos forzosos, legitimos, directos y
universales, sin haber dejado a ningun heredero legitimo ni hijo natural
legalmente reconocido. Que al fallacimiento de nuestra referida madre esta no
dejo ninguna clase de deuda ni obligacion siquiera ni tampoco existe otra
persona extrana que pretendiese ser privada de su derecho hereditaria * * *” and
thereupon divided the land aforementioned into three equal parts so that to each
and everyone of them was adjudicated 1/3 undivided portion of the said land. In
other words Ines Francisco was not given any share in the property in
question;

3. On April 22, 1932, the extra judicial partition was duly registered in the
office of the register of deeds of Bulacan and as a result thereof Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 8683 was issued in the name of Bartolome, Ciriaco and
Crisanto, all surnamed Francisco;

4. On June 27, 1934, Ciriaco Francisco died, leaving as his only heir his
daughter Gavina Francisco, one of the defendants herein;

5. On September 28, 1939 Ines Francisco died leaving as her only heirs her
legitimate children Eustaquio Juan, Dionisio Juan, and Adela Juan, plaintiffs
herein;

6. On March 30, 1941 Crisanto Francisco and Bartolome Francisco executed a
deed of sale whereby they sold their participation in the land in question
consisting of 2/3 in favor of Vicenta Zuñiga, one of the herein defendants for
the sum of P1,000.00 subject to repurchase within the term of two years from
said date. The deed of sale was duly registered in the office of the register of
deeds on May 17, 1941 and annotated at the back Transfer Certificate of Title
No. 8683 under the heading “Memorandum of Encumbrances Affecting the Property
Described in this Certificate”;

7. On December 3, 1941, Crisanto Francisco executed a deed of absolute sale
whereby for and in consideration of the sum of P500.00 he sold absolutely all
his rights, interest and participation in and over the 1/3 portion of the land
in question in favor of Vicenta Zuñiga, defendant. The deed of sale was duly
registered on September 17, 1942 and annotated at the back of Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 8683 under the heading “Memorandum of Encumbrances” on
said date;

8. On December 16, 1941 Crisanto Francisco died, leaving his legitimate
children Marcos, Lourdes, Dominga, Esperanza, Cayetano, Celestino and Benita,
all surnamed Francisco, defendants herein as his only heirs;

9. On August 17, 1948 Bartolome Francisco sold all his rights, interest and
participation in the land in question in favor of defendant Vicenta Zuñiga for
the sum of P920.00. The deed of gale was registered on June 26, 1954 and duly
inscribed on said date at the back of Transfer Certificate of Title No8683 under
. the heading “Memorandum of Encumbrances”;

10. On November 5, 1948 Bartolome Francisco died leaving as his only heir his
legitimate son Florencio Francisco, one of the herein defendants;

The only question to be resolved in this case is as to whether the
plaintiffs’ right of action has already prescribed. It will be noted from the
foregoing that this is essentially an action for relief on the ground of fraud.
There is no allegation in the complaint nor evidence of any kind tending to show
that the alleged fraud perpetrated by Ciriaco Francisco, Bartolome Francisco and
Grisanto Francisco upon Ines Francisco, mother of herein plaintiffs was
discovered by the latter only within 4 years from February 4, 1957 when this
action was filed. As a matter of fact it appears that since the registration of
the deed extrajudicial partition in the office of the register of deeds of
Bulacan on April 22, 1932 and the transfer of the land in question in the names
of Grisanto, Bartolome and Ciriaco, Ines Francisco had not asserted her rights
to the land or taken any action whatsoever in order to protect her interest
thereto up to her death on September 28, 1939. * * * It is our considered
opinion, therefore, that whatever right of action the late Ines Francisco and/or
the herein plaintiffs had has already prescribed under Sec. 43, Par. 3 of Act
190, the law applicable to the case at bar.”

It should be explained that the defendants are: (a) Vicenta Zuñiga who has
purchased the shares (2/3 of Lot 1175 of Crisanto Francisco and Bartolome
Francisco (and the heirs of the latter); and (b) the only heir of Ciriaco
Francisco (who got 1/3), namely, Gavina Francisco.

Said court held that the plaintiffs’ action had prescribed. It held,
furthermore, that as Zuñiga was a buyer in good faith of land with a Torrens
Title, recovery of the 2/3 from her is barred by the provisions and principles
of the Land Registration Law.

The plaintiffs appealed; and now, they do tiot insist on recovering from
Zuñiga. They insist, however, in recovering from Gavina Francisco, a portion of
the lot of Ciriaco. They say he (Ciriaco) was entitled only to 1/4 of the lot
(1175) of 72,106 square meters, which means 18026 square meters; and since he
obtained 24,035 square meters, more or less, because of the fraudulent partition
(depriving Ines Francisco of her portion) Ciriaco received an excess of 6,009
square meters, which he (Ciriaco or his heir Gavina) should now turn’over to
plaintiffs.

This explains the presentation of a brief for Gavina only, and the
non-presentation of a brief for the other appellees. The controversy here is
thus reduced.

It is undeniable that Ciriaco, tJartolome and Crisanto defrauded their sister
Ines of her share, by falsely representing in the extrajudicial deed of
partition that they were the only three legitimate children and heirs of
their mother Luciana Ciderio.

Such being the case, our ruling in Sevilla vs. Angeles, 97 Phil., 875; 51
Off. Gaz., 5590; is clearly concluclusive. There, pretending to be the sole heir
of the deceased Felix Sevilla, the defendant succeeded in obtaining thru fraud,
a new certificate of title in her own name, substituting a previous title issued
in the name of the “heirs of Felix Sevilla” and in taking and holding possession
of the land for 14 years. Sued by the true heirs of Felix Sevilla, she pleaded
prescription. She lost the case. Our reasoning therein, may now be quoted
because it plainly points out the error in the point of view adopted by the
Bulacan trial judge, as herein-above quoted:

“In considering that the action of the plaintiffs had already prescribed even
if the complaint does not expressly state the date when the alleged fraud was
discovered by them, the court (referring to the lower court) made the following
comment: ‘That the complaint does not allege when plaintiffs discovered the
commission of the fraud, that is, the fraudulent cancellation of Original
Certificate of Title No. 1056 and the issuance of T. C. T. No. 577 in the name
of the defendant. The property, however, is covered by a certificate of title
duly registered in the office of the Register of Deeds, and, therefore, open to
examination by any interested party therein. As the records of the Register of
Deeds are public records and open to the inspection and examination of the
interested parties, there can be no concealment.’ In other words, since it
appears that the aforesaid Certificate of Title No. 577 was issued in 1936 as a
result of the fraud practiced by defendant and the plaintiffs have taken the
present action only in 1951, the action, in the opinion of the court (lower), is
now barred upon the theory that plaintiffs had had constructive notice of
the fraud for more than 14 years since the issuance in 1936 of said Certificate
of Title No. 577.

While this ruling is correct if applied to ordinary actions of recovery of
real property which is covered by a Torrens Title upon the theory that its
registration under our registration system has the effect of a constructive
notice to the whole world, the same cannot be availed of when the purpose of
the action is to compel a trustee to convey the property registered in his name
for the benefit of the cestui que trust. In other words, the defense of
prescription cannot be set up in an fiction whose purpose is to recover property
held by a person for the benefit of another. * * *

A similar situation obtains in the present case. The complaint alleges that
the patent of the land was granted on April 27, 1934 and to implement it,
Original Certificate of Title No. 1056 was issued in the name of the “Heirs of
Felix Sevilla”—meaning the plaintiffs herein who were at that time minors—and
that sometime in 19S6 defendant through fraudulent representation, or by
pretending to be the sole heir of the deceased, succeeded in having the original
title cancelled and a new one issued in her name enabling her to possess the
land and appropriate its produce. This way of acquiring title creates what is
called ‘constructive trust‘ in favor of the defrauded party and
grants to the latter the right to vindicate the property regardless of the lapm
of time. Thus, it has been held that ‘if a person obtains legal title to
property by fraud or concealment, courts of equity will impress upon the title a
so-called constructive trust in favor of the defrauded party.’ The use of
the word trust in this sense is not technically accurate * * * but as
courts are agreed in administering the same remedy in a certain class of frauds
as are administered in fraudulent breaches of trust, and as courts and the
profession have concurred in calling such frauds constructive trust, there can
be, no misapprehension in continuing the same phraseology, while a change might
lead to confusion and misunderstanding.”

We need not reiterate those cases holding imprescriptible the action to
enforce a trust.^[1] A different view
could encourage fraud and permit one person unjustly to enrich himself at the
expense of another.

The decision is therefore reversed in so far as it affects the plaintiffs’
rights against Gavina Francisco; and the record is returned for further
proceedings in accordance with this opinion. Costs against said appellee.

Bautista Angelo, Concepcion, Barrera, and Paredes, JJ.,
concur.
Reyes, J. B. L., J., concurs in the result.

---

[1] Castro vs. Castro, 57 Phil., 675; Cristobal vs.
Gomez, 50 Phil., 810.