Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. Heirs of Cornelio GlorG.R. No. 104813, 21 October 1993

Facts: In 1950, then twelve-year-old Eutiquio Pureza and his father cleared and cultivated Lot 13, Pls-84 of Guinayangan Public Land Subdivision which measured more or less 54,406 sq.m. They introduced in 1954 improvements such as trees of coconut, jackfruit, mangoes, avocado and bananas. Upon the land's release for disposition, the Bureau of Lands surveyed it in Eutiquio Pureza's name.

Godofredo (Jose Olviga's son and brother of petitioners Virgilio and Lolita Olviga-Olila) protested the survey but without respect to the half-a-hectare portion "sa dakong panulukan ng Amihanan-Silanganan" which he claimed. Godofredo's protest is of public record in the Bureau of Lands and it stated that he admitted the lot belonged to Eutiquio except for the half-a-hectare portion included in the survey.

Eutiquio filed a homestead application in 1960 for Lot 13, but since no action was done on his application, he transferred his rights to the lot in 1961 to Cornelio Glor, Sr.. The Bureau of Lands' records did not disclose why there was no action for Eutiquio's homestead application and the proposed transfer of rights to the land to Cornelio, Sr. The elder Cornelio was sickly and since his wife Angelita was unschooled, she and her children failed to follow up Eutiquio's homestead application in the cadastral proceedings held at the Municipal Court of Guinayangan Public Land Subdivision. Angelita testified that she was never notified about the outcome of said proceedings. The non-posting of the hearing of cadastral proceedings was confirmed by Virgilio.

The Olvigas were Glors' neighbors. Jose claimed on the other hand adjoining lands Lot 12 and 13 in the cadastral proceeding. He falsely omitted that there were persons claiming possession and adverse interests in Lot 13 and Eutiquio's sale of rights to Cornelio Sr. in 1961. Thus in 1967, the lands were awarded without contest to Jose Olviga and subsequently registered under Original Certificate of Title No. 0-12713. Jose requested later in 1971 that the land be splitted into two separate lots with separate titles. TCT Nos. T-103823 and T-103824 were subsequently issued to Lots 12 and 13 respectively, and he later on transferred Lot 13 to his daughter Lolita and her husband Jaime Olila.

Cornelio's widow Angelita filed in the Regional Trial Court of Calauag, Quezon an action against the heirs of Jose Olviga to reconvey that parcel of land to her and her heirs. The RTC rendered judgment in Angelita's favor after due trial, and it ordered the Olvigas' to reconvey the land and pay attorney's fees.

Jose Olviga's heirs appealed the trial court's decision to the Court of Appeals, but it affirmed the trial court's judgment in its 13 January 1992 decision (CA-G.R. CV No. 30542). It also found that spouses Jaime and Lolita Olviga-Olila were not in possession of the disputed land nor innocent purchasers for value and that the Glors and their predecessor-in-interest Eutiquio Pureza were the possessors.

Issues addressed by the Supreme Court: The Olviga heirs asked for petition for review of the CA's decision and the following issues were raised,

1. Whether or not plaintiffs' action is for quieting of title that does not prescribe, and assuming their demand is for reconveyance of the land being based on implied trust, prescribes in ten (10) years?

The Supreme Court held that an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten (10) years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed of the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. 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.

2. Whether the Glors' cause of action accrued not in 1967 but in 1988, and as mere homestead transferees, cannot maintain an action for reconveyance?

It was also held that the Glors and their predecessors-in-interest Cornelio Glor, Sr. and Eutiquio Pureza were in actual possession of the property since 1950. Their undisturbed possession gave them continuing right to seek aid of a court of equity to determine nature of Olviga's adverse claim, who in 1988, disturbed their possession. Thus, the right to quiet the property's title which seeks reconveyance and annulment of any certificate of title, accrues only from the time the possessor was made aware of the adverse claim and it is only from that time that the statutory period of prescription commences to run against him/her. It also stated that the actual possessor of a piece of land claiming to be its owner may wait until disturbance of his/her possession or the attack of his/her title before taking steps in vindication of his/her right because his undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.