Scribd
Upload
9 views2 pages

SPS Aboitiz ROEL

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the Mariano Heirs were not the owners of Lot No. 2835 when they sold it to Roberto, as Ciriaco had already sold it to the Spouses Po in 1973. The Court held that Spouses Po could file an action for reconveyance and annulment of title based on an implied trust due to fraud, as they were the true owners of the property. The action for reconveyance was found to be within the 10-year prescriptive period since it was filed less than three years after the issuance of the Torrens title.

Uploaded by

Dacillo Hannah Vhie Dianne
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
9 views2 pages

SPS Aboitiz ROEL

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision that the Mariano Heirs were not the owners of Lot No. 2835 when they sold it to Roberto, as Ciriaco had already sold it to the Spouses Po in 1973. The Court held that Spouses Po could file an action for reconveyance and annulment of title based on an implied trust due to fraud, as they were the true owners of the property. The action for reconveyance was found to be within the 10-year prescriptive period since it was filed less than three years after the issuance of the Torrens title.

Uploaded by

Dacillo Hannah Vhie Dianne
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

SPS. ABOITIZ Vs. SPS.

PO
G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017
FACTS:
A parcel of land, referred to as Lot No. 2835, originally belonged to the late Mariano
Seno (Mariano)

In 1973, Mariano executed a Deed of Absolute Sale (DOS) in favor of his son, Ciriaco
Seno (Ciriaco) covered by Tax Declaration that includes Lot No. 2835.
In 1978, Ciriaco sold the two (2) lots to Victoria Po (Victoria) covered by DOS.
Mariano the died and survived by his 5 children (Mariano Heirs) which include
Ciriaco
In 1990, Peter Po (Peter) discovered that Ciriaco "had executed a quitclaim in favor of
Roberto. In the quitclaim, Ciriaco stated that he was "the declared owner of Lot No.
2835
The Spouses Po confronted Ciriaco. Sps. Po and Ciriaco executed MOA in 1990 for
payment of the difference between the amount paid by the Spouses Po as
consideration for the entire property and the value of the land the Spouses Po were left
with after the quitclaim
Also in 1990, The Mariano Heirs, including Ciriaco sold the Lot No. 2835 Roberto
with separate deeds of absolute sale executed.
Later, both Sps. Po and Roberto were issued with different tax dec. over the subject
lot.
In 1993, Roberto filed an application for original registration of Lot No. 2835 with the
Mandaue City RTC, which was then granted. Original Certificate of Title was issued
in his name. Lot was subdivided with portions sold to Ernesto and Jose
In 1996, Spouses Po filed a complaint to recover the land and to declare nullity of
title with damages before a separate branch of RTC Mandaue City. Granted.
Spouses Aboitiz appealed to CA. They were declared the rightful owner, but titles
issued to respondents Jose, Ernesto, and Isabel (Aboitiz) should be respected.

ISSUE:
1. Whether Ciriaco merely held the property in trust for the Mariano Heirs co and
thus, he could not have validly sold the property to the Spouses Po.

2. Whether sps. Aboitiz is a trustee of an implied trust of Sps. Po (the property's


true and lawful owner), on the ground of fraud, and therefore Sps. Po can file
an action for reconveyance and annulment of title
HELD:
1. NO, The SC affirmed that decision of the Court of Appeals which held that the
Mariano Heirs were no longer the owners of the lot at the time they sold it to Roberto
in 1990 because Mariano, during his lifetime, already sold this to Ciriaco in 1973.
It found that the Deed of Absolute Sale between Ciriaco and the Spouses Po was duly
notarized and was thus presumed regular on its face. Their Memorandum of
Agreement did not cancel or rescind the Deed of Absolute Sale but rather
strengthened their claim that they "entered into a contract of sale
2. YES. Art. 1456 Civil Code provides that “If property is acquired through mistake
or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied
trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.”
It was held that when a party uses fraud or concealment to obtain a certificate of title
of property, a constructive trust is created in favor of the defrauded party.

Constructive trusts are "created by the construction of equity in order to satisfy the
demands of justice and prevent unjust enrichment. They arise contrary to intention
against one who, by fraud, duress or abuse of confidence, obtains or holds the legal
right to property which he ought not, in equity and good conscience, to hold."

In the case at bar, respondent's action which is for Reconveyance and Cancellation of
Title is based on an implied trust under Art. 1456 of the Civil Code since he averred in
his complaint that through fraud petitioners were able to obtain a Certificate of Title
over the property.
A complaint for reconveyance is an action which admits the registration of title of
another party but claims that such registration was erroneous or wrongful. When
property is registered in another's name, an implied or constructive trust is created by
law in favor of the true owner. The action for reconveyance of the title to the rightful
owner prescribes in 10 years from the issuance of the title

Registration of the property is a "constructive notice to the whole world." Thus, in


registering the property, the adverse party repudiates the implied trust. Necessarily,
the cause of action accrues upon registration.
Considering that the Spouses Po's complaint was filed on November 19, 1996, less
than three (3) years from the issuance of the Torrens title over the property on April 6,
1994, it is well within the 10-year prescriptive period imposed on an action for
reconveyance. HENCE, Sps. Po can file an action for reconveyance and annulment of
title.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy