Luz v. Luz
This is a civil case, G.R. No. 234867, decided by the First Division of the Supreme Court on February 5, 2018. The Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner Jose Fidel R. Luz for failure to show that the Court of Appeals committed any reversible error in its decision and resolution dated June 27, 2017 and October 12, 2017, respectively. The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that petitioner's action was already barred by the 10-year prescription period, as the designation of his complaint before the trial court as one for "Quieting of Title" did not change the fact that his end goal was to seek reconveyance of the property. The doctrine in Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals stands, that an action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, with the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property.
ADVERTISEMENT
FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 234867. February 5, 2018.]
JOSE FIDEL R. LUZ, petitioner,vs. JOSE PIO LUZ, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedFebruary 5, 2018which reads as follows: HTcADC
"G.R. No. 234867 — Jose Fidel R. Luz vs. Jose Pio Luz
The Motion for Extension of Time filed by the petitioner seeking an additional period of 30 days from the expiration of the reglementary period on November 8, 2017 within which to file his Petition for Review on Certiorari is hereby GRANTED.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments adduced in the instant Petition for Review on Certiorari of the Decision and Resolution dated June 27, 2017 and October 12, 2017, respectively, of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. CV No. 107647, the Court resolves to DENY the same for failure of the petitioner to show that the CA committed any reversible error.
The Court agrees with the disquisition of the CA that petitioner's action was already barred by the 10-year prescription period. This petition is dismissible on that ground alone. While the designation of petitioner's complaint before the trial court is one for "Quieting of Title," his end goal was to seek reconveyance of the property, a relief sought which he expressed before the trial court.
The doctrine we have laid down in Heirs of Jose Olviga v. Court of Appeals1 stands, viz.:
With regard to the issue of prescription, this Court has ruled a number of times before that an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property (Vda. de Portugal vs. IAC, 159 SCRA 178). But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court hereby resolves to AFFIRM the assailed June 27, 2017 Decision and October 12, 2017 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 107647.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. 298 Phil. 93, 99 (1993).
RECOMMENDED FOR YOU