HEIRS OF MARIA REVILLEZA VDA. DE VEGA AND HEIRS OF SEBASTIAN SALVA CRUZ, PETITIONERS, VS. COURT OF APPEALS AND HEIRS OF ANTONIO TAMISIN, RESPONDENTS.

Heirs of Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega versus Heirs of Antonio Tamisin

The Case

This is a petition for review on certiorari brought by the heirs of Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega and the heirs of Sebastian Salva Cruz against the heirs of Antonio Tamisin. The private respondents sued to recover a parcel of land in Batong Malake, Los Baños, Laguna, which they say the petitioners wrongfully hold. The case matters because it draws a bright line between two kinds of action that look alike but prescribe very differently: an action to declare a contract inexistent, which never prescribes, and an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust, which prescribes in ten years. The Supreme Court uses the complaint itself, its allegations and its prayer, to tell which one was really filed.

Procedural History

The private respondents filed their original complaint for annulment of documents, reconveyance and damages before the then Court of First Instance of Laguna, later the Regional Trial Court. They amended the complaint to one for reconveyance and damages. The heirs of Maura Tamisin intervened. The trial court dismissed the complaint and the complaint in intervention for failure to establish the claims by preponderance of evidence, and ordered the plaintiffs and intervenors to pay attorney's fees and costs. Only the private respondents appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the trial court decision and rendered a new judgment ordering the petitioners to reconvey ownership and possession of the land and to pay attorney's fees and costs. The Court of Appeals denied the motion for reconsideration. The petitioners then came to the Supreme Court by petition for review on certiorari.

Facts

The land was originally owned by Ignacio Revilleza, who died intestate leaving five children: Margarita, Lorenzo, Florencio, Sinforosa and Dominga. Margarita had two children with Valeriano Tamisin, namely Antonio and Maura. Antonio Tamisin is the father of the private respondents. Lorenzo Revilleza had four children, among them Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega. Sebastian Salva Cruz was the son of another daughter of Ignacio.

After Ignacio died, an extrajudicial partition dated March 19, 1915 was executed among Florencio, Lorenzo, Sinforosa and Dominga, all surnamed Revilleza, and Antonio Tamisin. Eight parcels were distributed, and one parcel at Batong Malake went to Antonio Tamisin. In 1917 Antonio joined the United States Navy. On October 8, 1921 a document entitled Escritura de Venta Absoluta was allegedly signed by Antonio Tamisin and Maura Tamisin, with the conformity of Julio Dequillo, selling one half of the land to Sebastian Salva Cruz and the other half to Lorenzo Revilleza. Sebastian declared the remainder for taxation since 1948 and paid realty taxes from 1966 to 1979. When Lorenzo died in 1928, his son Emilio applied for registration of the second half. On May 20, 1929 Original Certificate of Title RO-1100 was issued in the names of Emilio, Macario and Marcela Revilleza and Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega, covering 6,594 square meters. In 1950 Maria executed an affidavit of adjudication in her favor, and Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3911 was issued in her name.

In 1964 the Bureau of Records Management certified that the Archives failed to reveal the existence of the Escritura de Venta Absoluta. Antonio Tamisin then filed a criminal complaint for falsification against Sebastian Salva Cruz, but the complaint was not pursued because Antonio got sick and died on November 2, 1966. On July 20, 1973 the private respondents filed their complaint, and on October 14, 1974 they filed the amended complaint for reconveyance and damages.

Issues

• Whether or not the private respondents identified the land they sought to recover.
• Whether or not the action before the trial court was mainly for annulment of a document, with reconveyance as a necessary consequence, which is imprescriptible, or for reconveyance, which is subject to prescription.

Applicable Provisions

Article 1410 of the Civil Code provides:

The action or defense for the declaration of the inexistence of a contract does not prescribe.

The Court of Appeals invoked this to hold that the action did not prescribe, and the Supreme Court rejects that application because the complaint was really one for reconveyance.

Section 40 of Act No. 190 provides:

Period of prescription as to real estate. An action for recovery of title to, or possession of, real property, or an interest therein, can only be brought within ten years after the cause of such action accrues.

This is the provision that governs the reconveyance action and fixes the ten year period that the Court finds had long lapsed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court adopts the ruling of the Court of Appeals that the land was identified. The petitioners themselves resisted the action by claiming they acquired the land through the Escritura de Venta Absoluta, so what the private respondents seek to recover are the very parcels described in that deed. As to the heirs of Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega, their title did not originate from that deed, since the parties to it were only Antonio and Maura Tamisin as vendors and Sebastian Salva Cruz as vendee. Still, Maria herself averred in her answer that her property was well defined by metes and bounds and brought under the Land Registration Law, so she knew what was being recovered.

On the second issue, the Court holds that the action was undoubtedly only for reconveyance with damages based on an implied or constructive trust. The Escritura de Venta Absoluta was never mentioned in the complaint. Instead, the complaint alleged that the petitioners, in bad faith, fraud and in violation of trust, were appropriating the land by unlawful acts of ownership, and prayed for reconveyance and damages. The Court states the governing rule:

An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years.

As to the heirs of Maria Revilleza Vda. de Vega, the action should have been brought within ten years from the issuance of Original Certificate of Title RO-1100 on May 20, 1929. As to the heirs of Sebastian Salva Cruz, it should have been brought within ten years from 1945, when Sebastian refused to comply with the demand of Antonio Tamisin for the return of the land. The amended complaint filed on October 14, 1974 was therefore filed too late.

Doctrine

The purpose of an action and the law that governs it, including the period of prescription, are determined not by the claim of the party in argument or brief, but by the complaint itself, its allegations and its prayer for relief. An action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years under Section 40 of Act No. 190, counted from the accrual of the cause of action. Article 1410 of the Civil Code, which makes the action to declare a contract inexistent imprescriptible, cannot be stretched to cover a complaint that in truth seeks recovery of land held in trust.

Disposition

The petition was granted; the Court of Appeals decision and resolution were set aside, and the trial court decision dismissing the complaint and the complaint in intervention was reinstated.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an action for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, and that the complaint itself, not the party's argument, fixes the nature of the action. Examiners use this case to test whether you can distinguish an imprescriptible action to declare a contract inexistent from a prescriptive action for reconveyance.