Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

ELISEO CARO v. CA

This case has been cited 6 times or more.

	GR No. 173186 2015-09-16	ANICETO UY v. CA JARDELEZA, J.
In Caro v. Court of Appeals,[44] we said that this provision should be read in conjunction with Article 1456 of the Civil Code, which provides: Article 1456. 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.
	GR No. 170318 2009-01-15	JOSEPH REMENTIZO v. HEIRS OF PELAGIA VDA. DE MADARIETA CARPIO, J.
Nevertheless, the right to seek reconveyance of registered property is not absolute because it is subject to extinctive prescription.[14] In Caro v. Court of Appeals,[15] the prescriptive period of an action for reconveyance was explained:[U]nder the present Civil Code, we find that just as an implied or constructive trust is an offspring of the law (Art. 1456, Civil Code), so is the corresponding obligation to reconvey the property and the title thereto in favor of the true owner. In this context, and vis-à-vis prescription, Article 1144 of the Civil Code is applicable.
	GR No. 115925 2003-08-15	SPS. RICARDO PASCUAL AND CONSOLACION SIOSON v. CA CARPIO, J.
Following Caro,[19] we have consistently held that an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in ten years. We went further by specifying the reference point of the ten-year prescriptive period as the date of the registration of the deed or the issuance of the title. The Court of Appeals' Reckoning of
	GR No. 144225 2003-06-17	SPS. GODOFREDO ALFREDO AND CARMEN LIMON ALFREDO v. SPS. ARMANDO BORRAS AND ADELIA LOBATON BORRAS CARPIO, J.
In this case, the appellate court resolved the issue of prescription by ruling that the action should prescribe four years from discovery of the fraud. We must correct this erroneous application of the four-year prescriptive period. In Caro v. Court of Appeals,[45] we explained why an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust should prescribe in ten years. In that case, the appellate court also erroneously applied the four-year prescriptive period. We declared in Caro:We disagree. The case of Liwalug Amerol, et al. v. Molok Bagumbaran, G.R. No. L-33261, September 30, 1987,154 SCRA 396 illuminated what used to be a gray area on the prescriptive period for an action to reconvey the title to real property and, corollarily, its point of reference: