This case has been cited 2 times or more.
|
2007-12-04 |
VELASCO, JR., J. |
||||
| An action for the reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust, as we have already explained in this case, prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title of the property.[11] In the instant case, no OCT has yet been issued to Lot No. 6416 despite an order on July 3, 1989 to title Lot Nos. 6409-A and 6416. Without an OCT, the date from whence the prescriptive period could be reckoned is unknown and it could not be determined if indeed the period had already lapsed or not. Thus, we agree with the CA that prescription has not yet set in when the instant case was filed on September 5, 1996. | |||||
|
2007-02-22 |
TINGA, J. |
||||
| Petitioners' alternative prayer for reconveyance of Lot No. 1430 based on the principle of constructive trust[40] must likewise fail considering that their claimed ownership of Lot No. 1430 was found to be without basis. Under this principle, registration of property by one person in his name, whether by mistake or fraud, the real owner being another person, impresses upon the title so acquired the character of a constructive trust for the real owner, which would justify an action for reconveyance.[41] The essence of an action for reconveyance is that the decree of registration is respected as incontrovertible but what is sought instead is the transfer of the property which has been wrongfully or erroneously registered in another person's name, to its rightful owner or to one with a better right.[42] Clearly, not being the owners of Lot No. 1430, petitioners cannot ask for reconveyance of the property to them under the principle of constructive trust. | |||||