SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. 47924. July 31, 1989.]

MARCIANO ASUNCION, Petitioner, v. HON.

GREGORIO G. PINEDA, Judge of the Court of First
Instance of Rizal, Branch XXI, Pasig, Metro Manila,
HEIRS OF MARIA OLIVEROS-SORIANO and
HEIRS OF SOTERO OLIVEROS, Respondents.

Benjamin S. Formoso for Petitioner.

Melencio G. Francisco for Respondents.

Jose S. Balajadia for Heirs of Oliveros.

SYLLABUS

1. REMEDIAL LAW; CIVIL PROCEDURE;

JUDGMENT; RES JUDICATA; REQUISITES. — It is
well settled that the essential requisites for the existence
of res judicata are: (1) that the former judgment must be
final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court having
jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties; (3) it
must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be,
between the first and second actions, (a) identity of
parties; (b) identity of subject matter; and (c) identity of
cause of action.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; SHOULD BE ALLEGED IN

ANSWER AND RESOLVED AFTER TRIAL ON THE
MERITS INSTEAD OF BY RESOLUTION OF A
MOTION TO DISMISS. — Even granting for the sake
of argument that petitioner is a party in Civil Case No.
21048, yet, as admitted by the parties, the case was still
pending before the same court when the present case
(Civil Case No. 26938) for reconveyance was filed by
petitioner herein. In other words, there is as yet no final
judgment, to speak of, in Civil Case No. 21048, which
would have the effect of barring the present case, on the
ground of res judicata. The application of res judicata is
at best not indubitable and the defense should, if at all, be
alleged in the answer and resolved after trial on the
merits, instead of by resolution of a simple motion to
dismiss. More so, where as in the present case, one set of
respondents (Heirs of Sotero Oliveros) admit petitioner’s
claim.

3. CIVIL LAW; TRUST; IMPLIED TRUST; AN

ACTION TO RECONVEY REAL PROPERTY BASED
THEREON CAN BE BARRED BY PRESCRIPTION;
CASE AT BAR. — In the case at bar, O.C.T. No. 10 in
the name of Macario Oliveros was issued in 1917, or
almost sixty (60) years before the filing of the present
complaint. Even granting that an implied or constructive
trust was created in favor of Filemon O. Asuncion,
petitioner’s father, under Article 1456 of the Civil Code,
still an action to reconvey real property based upon a
constructive or implied trust can be barred by
prescription.

DECISION

PADILLA, J.:

This petition for review seeks the annulment of the

Order, dated 24 November 1977, issued by respondent
Judge of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch
XXI, in Civil Case No. 26938, dismissing petitioner’s
complaint for reconveyance with damages. 1

On 7 August 1977, petitioner filed a complaint before the

Court of First Instance of Rizal, Branch XXI, docketed as
Civil Case No. 26938, entitled "Marciano Asuncion v.
Heirs of Spouses Maria Oliveros and Alejandro Soriano,
Et. Al. and the Heirs of Spouses Sotero Oliveros and
Fausta Alarcon, Et. Al." 2 The complaint seeks to compel
defendants therein (now private respondents) to execute a
Deed of Reconveyance over 3.5 hectares located at the
northwestern portion of that parcel of land situated in
Antipolo, Rizal, covered by T.C.T. No. 15394 (formerly
O.C.T. No. 10) registered in the names of Estanislawa
Partoza, Sotero Oliveros and Maria Oliveros.

The complaint alleges that the property was held in trust

by the private respondents’ grandfather, Macario
Oliveros, for the benefit of petitioner’s father, Filemon
Oliveros Asuncion. According to petitioner, as plaintiff,
Filemon O. Asuncion (his father) is the son of Marcela
Oliveros, full-blood sister of Macario Oliveros; that
Filemon possessed, developed and cultivated the disputed
3.5 hectares of the land originally covered by O.C.T. No.
10 long before the title was issued; that Macario Oliveros
and Filemon (his nephew) agreed to consolidate the
possession and cultivation of their respective lands in
order that the former’s application with the Bureau of
Lands for a Homestead Patent would be approved, since
the possession and cultivation of Macario was incomplete
and was then opposed by a third party; that it was also
agreed that the 3.5 hectares of Filemon would remain
registered in the name of Macario to be held in trust and
for the benefit of Filemon; that after the approval of the
application and issuance of the Homestead Patent in the
name of Macario Oliveros, Filemon, and, later, his only
son, herein petitioner Marciano Asuncion, continued to
cultivate and possess the 3.5 hectares up to the present;
that after the death of Macario, O.C.T. No. 10 was
transferred in the names of his compulsory heirs, namely,
his wife Estanislawa Partoza, and two children, Sotero
and Maria, both surnamed Oliveros.

Private respondents, the Heirs of Spouses Maria Oliveros

and Alejandro Soriano, moved for the dismissal of the
complaint on the ground, among other things, of res
judicata. 3
Pertinent facts of the case are stated in the here assailed
24 November 1977 Order of respondent Judge, which
reads as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"In Civil Case No. 21048 also pending in this sala, the
heirs of the spouses Maria Oliveros and Alejandro
Soriano filed an action for partition with damages against
the heirs of the spouses Sotero Oliveros and Fausta
Alarcon concerning a property situated in the
Municipality of Antipolo, Rizal and covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 15394 (formerly Original
Certificate of Title No. 10 in the name of the Heirs of
Macario Oliveros) of the registry of deeds of Rizal.

"Plaintiff herein, Marciano Asuncion, filed a motion for

intervention claiming 3 1/2 hectares of the property,
alleging that he and his predecessors-in-interest had been
personally in possession and in cultivation of said
property in good faith, openly, continuously, exclusively,
publicly and notoriously and with a bonafide claim of
ownership. Plaintiffs filed an opposition.

"This Court, in denying the intervention,

ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘Intervenor does not claim to be an heir of Macario

Oliveros. His claim of ownership based on possession
which is alleged to be open, continuous, exclusive, public
and in the concept of owner since time immemorial and
long before the issuance of Original Certificate of Title
No. 10, granting that this claim were true, cannot prevail
upon the well-settled rule that the Torrens Title serves as
evidence undefeasible [sic] title to the property in favor
of the person whose name appears therein. After the
expiration of the one-year period from the issuance of the
decree of registration upon which it is based, it becomes
incontrovertible.’

"Marciano Asuncion elevated the case to the Court of

Appeals by means of a petition for mandamus
and certiorari, (CA-G.R. No. SP-015636) seeking the
annulment of the order of this Court denying his motion
to intervene. In denying the petition the Court of Appeals
ruled:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

‘PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Order appealed from is

AFFIRMED. Petition is hereby DISMISSED and the
Restraining Order issued in connection with his case is
ordered LIFTED. Let the respondent Judge proceed with
the partition proceedings. Without pronouncement as to
costs.’

"The decision of the Court of Appeals is already final and

executory.

"The motion to dismiss should be granted."cralaw

virtua1aw library

In dismissing petitioner’s complaint, respondent Judge

found that the same facts and the same cause of action
alleged in petitioner’s motion for intervention in Civil
Case No. 21048 are present in the case at bar. And since
the Order denying petitioner’s motion for intervention in
Civil Case No. 21048 had become final and executory,
the present complaint is barred by said final Order.

Petitioner moved for a reconsideration of the abovesaid

Order of 24 November 1977. 4 The motion was likewise
denied on 7 February 1978. 5

Petitioner filed a notice of appeal and appeal bond. Later,

he withdrew the same, whereupon, the court a quo
dismissed his appeal as per its Order dated 30 June 1978.
In lieu of his withdrawn appeal, petitioner filed the
instant petition for review on certiorari, on the ground
that the issue involves jurisdiction of the lower court and
that the instant petition is more expeditious than the
ordinary appeal. 6
On 23 April 1979, the Court resolved to give due course
to the petition.

Two issues are raised by petitioner, to wit:chanrob1es

virtual 1aw library

A. whether the denial of his Motion To Intervene in Civil

Case No. 21048 for partition is a bar to the petition for
Reconveyance, a remedy invoked by petitioner under
Section 102 of the Land Registration Law, Act 496;

B. whether the action for reconveyance for the

enforcement of the trust is subject to prescription under
Act 496.

The crux of petitioner’s arguments in support of this

petition is that he is not seeking a remedy under Section
38 of Act 496 (Land Registration Law) but rather the
enforcement of a trust under the provisions of Section
102 of the said Act. He maintains that when Macario
Oliveros and Filemon O. Asuncion (petitioner’s father)
agreed to have their respective lands consolidated for the
purpose of expediting the former’s application for a
Homestead Patent, there was created a fiduciary
relationship between them. Citing the case Manalang, Et.
Al. v. Canlas, Et Al., L-6307, 20 April 1954, Vol. No. 50,
No. 6, O.G., May 1954, petitioner avers that an action to
compel a trustee to convey the property registered in his
name in trust for the benefit of a cestui que trust does not
prescribe.

Petitioner further contends that the present complaint is

not barred by the "prior judgment" rendered in Civil Case
No. 21048 because the judgment therein was a denial of
his "Intervention" and not a decision on the merits of his
contention, while the case at bar is an independent
complaint for reconveyance to enforce the sacred and
inviolable trust between Macario Oliveros and Filemon
O. Asuncion, which is affirmed by defendants in Civil
Case No. 21048 (Heirs of Spouses Sotero Oliveros and
Fausta Alarcon) in their Answer to the Motion for
Intervention. 7

On the other hand, private respondents, Heirs of Spouses

Maria Oliveros and Alejandro Soriano, deny that there is
such a trust agreement between Macario Oliveros, their
grandfather, and Filemon O. Asuncion, petitioner’s
father, contrary to the sworn statement of the other
private respondents, Heirs of Sotero Oliveros and Fausta
Alarcon. Respondents (Heirs of Maria Oliveros) argue
that if it were really true that during the lifetime of the
Spouses Macario Oliveros and Estanislawa Partoza and
Filemon O. Asuncion, there was such a trust agreement,
the agreement should have been annotated at the back of
Original Certificate of Title No. 10 and subsequently on
T.C.T. No. 15394. And then, assuming arguendo that
petitioner had a right to recover title to and possession of
the property, respondents (Heirs of Maria Oliveros)
allege that because of the failure of petitioner and his
predecessor-in-interest to take action to recover the
disputed property for sixty (60) years from the issuance
of O.C.T. No. 10 in 1917, an action to recover title to and
possession of the property in question has already
prescribed.

Finally, respondents (Heirs of Maria Oliveros) insist that

the denial of petitioner’s motion to intervene in Civil
Case No. 21048 has become final; hence, a bar to the
filing of the present action for reconveyance which was
correctly dismissed by respondent Judge.

It is well settled that the essential requisites for the

existence of res judicata are: (1) that the former judgment
must be final; (2) it must have been rendered by a court
having jurisdiction of the subject matter and the parties;
(3) it must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there
must be, between the first and second actions, (a) identity
of parties; (b) identity of subject matter; and (c) identity
of cause of action.
We note that in Civil Case No. 21048 which was an
action for partition, the complainants were the Heirs of
Spouses Maria Oliveros and Alejandro Soriano against
the Heirs of Sotero Oliveros and Fausta Alarcon.
Petitioner filed a motion to intervene therein which was
denied by the court for reasons aforequoted. When
petitioner’s motion for intervention was denied,
resultantly, he did not become a party to the case.
Besides, the Order of the court denying his intervention
is not a decision on the merits of Civil Case No. 21048.
The said Order, therefore, does not constitute res judicata
vis-a-vis the present case, Petitioner did not participate in
the trial of Civil Case No. 21048 where he could have
presented (but was not allowed) evidence to support his
claim.

But, even granting for the sake of argument that

petitioner is a party in Civil Case No. 21048, yet, as
admitted by the parties, the case was still pending before
the same court when the present case (Civil Case No.
26938) for reconveyance was filed by petitioner herein.
In other words, there is as yet no final judgment, to speak
of, in Civil Case No. 21048, which would have the effect
of barring the present case, on the ground of res judicata.
The application of res judicata is at best not indubitable
and the defense should, if at all, be alleged in the answer
and resolved after trial on the merits, instead of by
resolution of a simple motion to dismiss. 8 More so,
where as in the present case, one set of respondents
(Heirs of Sotero Oliveros) admit petitioner’s claim.

For the foregoing reasons, we believe that the denial of

herein petitioner’s Motion To Intervene in Civil Case No.
21048 is not res judicata to his present action.

As regards, however, the second issue, we rule in the

affirmative and against the petitioner.

In the case of Sinaon v. Sorongon, 9 this Court held that

the petitioners therein having been registered owners of
the lot for more than forty (40) years and having
possessed it during said period, their title had become
indefeasible and their possession could not be disturbed.
Any pretension as to the existence of an implied trust
should not be countenanced.

In the case at bar, O.C.T. No. 10 in the name of Macario

Oliveros was issued in 1917, or almost sixty (60) years
before the filing of the present complaint. Even granting
that an implied or constructive trust was created in favor
of Filemon O. Asuncion, petitioner’s father, under
Article 1456 of the Civil Code, still an action to reconvey
real property based upon a constructive or implied trust
can be barred by prescription. 10

Petitioner offers the document 11 wherein the Heirs of

Sotero Oliveros (the other set of private respondents)
acknowledge the claim of petitioner to the 3.5 hectares of
the property under dispute. In the above cited Sinaon
case, which involved substantially the same
circumstances as in the present case, the Court
declared:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The trustors, who created the alleged trust, died a long

time ago. An attempt to prove the trust was made by
unreliable oral evidence. The title and possession of the
Sinaons cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can
be easily fabricated and contradicted. The contradictory
oral evidence leaves the court sometimes bothered and
bewildered.

"There was no express trust in this case. Express trusts

concerning real property cannot be proven by parol
evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Code). An implied trust
‘cannot be established, contrary to the recitals of a
Torrens title, upon vague and inconclusive proof (Suarez
v. Tirambulo, 59 Phil. 303; Salao v. Salao, L-26699,
March 16, 1976, 70 SCRA 65, 83)."cralaw virtua1aw
library
Hence, we find that the present action is barred by
prescription.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DISMISSED. Costs

against petitioner.

SO ORDERED.