Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. Fernandez
Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. Fernandez
Philippine Economic Zone Authority vs. Fernandez
THIRD DIVISION
obtained by actual fraud, is deprived of an estate or an interest
therein. Although a review of the decree of registration is no
longer possible after the one-year period from its entry expires,
[G.R. No. 138971. June 6, 2001] still available is an equitable remedy to compel the reconveyance
of property to those who may have been wrongfully deprived of
it. This equitable remedy afforded by law is not without limitations,
however.
PHILIPPINE ECONOMIC ZONE AUTHORITY
(PEZA), petitioner, vs. HON. RUMOLDO R.
FERNANDEZ, Regional Trial Court of Lapu-Lapu City
(Branch 54); and the Heirs of the Deceased Spouses Same; Same; Same; Same; Registration of real property is
JUAN CUIZON and FLORENTINA considered a constructive notice to all persons and, thus, the four-
RAPAYA, respondents. year period shall be counted therefrom.—An action for
reconveyance resulting from fraud prescribes four years from the
DECISION discovery of the fraud; such discovery is deemed to have taken
place upon the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
Civil Law; Property; Reconveyance; Prescription; Persons unduly Registration of real property is considered a constructive notice
deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may assert to all persons and, thus, the four-year period shall be counted
their claim only within the two-year period after the settlement and therefrom. Clearly then, private respondents’ action for
distribution of the estate; Prescription period does not apply to reconveyance based on fraud has already prescribed,
those who had no part in or had no notice of the settlement.—A considering that title to said property had been issued way back
perusal of the foregoing provision will show that persons unduly on August 11, 1982, while the reivindicatory suit was instituted
deprived of their lawful participation in a settlement may assert only on July 29, 1996.
their claim only within the two-year period after the settlement and
distribution of the estate. This prescription period does not apply,
however, to those who had no part in or had no notice of the settle
of limitations. Moreover, by no reason or logic can one contend Same; Same; Same; Same; The imprescriptibility of an action for
that an extrajudicial partition, being merely an ex parte reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust applies only
proceeding, would affect third persons who had no knowledge when the plaintiff or the person enforcing the trust is in
thereof. Be that as it may, it cannot be denied, either, that by its possession of the property.—Even an action for reconveyance
registration in the manner provided by law, a transaction may be based on an implied constructive trust would have already
known actually or constructively. prescribed just the same, because such action prescribes ten
(10) years from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of
issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The
imprescriptibility of an action for reconveyance based on implied
Same; Same; Same; Same; An equitable remedy to compel the or constructive trust applies only when the plaintiff or the person
reconveyance of property to those who may have been wrongfully enforcing the trust is in possession of the property. In effect, the
deprived of it is not without limitations.—The law recognizes the
action for reconveyance is an action to quiet the property title, WHEREFORE, [there being] no abuse of discretion committed
which does not prescribe. by respondent court, the instant petition is hereby DISMISSED.