FIRST DIVISION
[G.R. No. 242314. January 30, 2019.]
TOMAS A. SANTOS, MARIA S. MERCADO, ANA S. ENRIQUEZ, MAGDALENA S. CRUZ, MARGARITA S. JACINTO, POTENCIANA SANTOS SANTOS, AND FLORINDA S. RUBIO, petitioners,vs. SPOUSES FORTUNATO S. PEREZ AND CORAZON R. PADILLA, respondents.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated January 30, 2019 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 242314 — Tomas A. Santos, Maria S. Mercado, Ana S. Enriquez, Magdalena S. Cruz, Margarita S. Jacinto, Potenciana Santos Santos, and Florinda S. Rubio, petitioners, vs. Spouses Fortunato S. Perez and Corazon R. Padilla, respondents.
The Court resolves to GRANT petitioners' Motion for Extension of Time 1 seeking an additional period of thirty (30) days, counted from the expiration of the reglementary period on October 24, 2018, within which to file their Petition for Review on Certiorari.
Considering the allegations, issues, and arguments raised in the Petition for Review on Certiorari, the Court further resolves to DENY the same for: (a) having raised factual issues; (b) failure of petitioners' counsel to indicate the date of issuance of his MCLE Compliance IV; and (c) failure to show that the Court of Appeals (CA) committed any reversible error as to warrant the Court's exercise of its discretionary appellate jurisdiction.
Petitioners insist that they are the beneficial owners and actual occupants of the 1,125-square meter portion of Lot 2890 covered by Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-45902 and T-45903, and the same should be reconveyed to them by its registered owner, respondent Fortunato S. Perez (Fortunato), as its inclusion in the mother title, Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-1783, was obtained thru mistake and/or fraud.
At the outset, it bears stressing that the issues as to the ownership of the subject lot and the alleged mistake and/or fraud inthe registration of said property are clearly factual in nature. As such, these issues cannot be entertained in a Rule 45 petition, where the Court's jurisdiction is limited to reviewing and revising errors of law that might have been committed by the lower courts. 2 Thus, on this ground, the Petition should be denied, in the absence of any exceptional circumstance3 as to merit the Court's review of factual questions that have already been settled by the courts below.
In any case, the CA correctly concluded that the action for reconveyance was already barred by prescription.
"[T]he prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently[-]registered real property is ten (10) years reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title. This ten[10]-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date the adverse party repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation takes place when the adverse party registers the land." 4 This rule, however, does not apply when the party seeking reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust is in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of the property involved. In such a case, the action would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title which is imprescriptible. 5
In this case, OCT No. 0-1783 (the mother title) was issued in the name of Salome T. Santos (Salome) on July 1, 1960. 6 Notably, after the property's registration, an ejectment case and an action for recovery of possession were filed in 1971 and 2001 against petitioners wherein both Salome and Fortunato, respectively, emerged victorious. 7 Petitioners, therefore, could not be said to have been in actual, continuous and peaceful possession of the subject lots as early as 1915. Given these circumstances, it is clear that the action for reconveyance, having been filed in 2004 or beyond the ten (10)-year prescriptive period, is already barred by prescription.
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to AFFIRM the April 30, 2018 Decision and the August 17, 2018 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 104115.
Petitioners' Manifestation and Motion submitting the verified declaration of the petition for review on certiorari and a compact disc containing the soft copy of the petition for review on certiorari and its annexes is filed NOTED.
Moreover, the Register of Deeds for the Province of Bulacan is DELETED as a party respondent in this case pursuant to Section 4, Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Id. at 3-4.
2. See Far Eastern Surety and Insurance Co., Inc. vs. People, 721 Phil. 760, 770 (2013) citing Remalante vs. Tibe, 241 Phil. 930 (1988).
3. See New City Builders, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Commission, 499 Phil. 207, 212-213 (2005).
4.Uy v. Court of Appeals, 769 Phil. 705, 719-720 (2015).
5.Id.
6.Rollo, p. 36.
7.Id. at 37.