EN BANC

[G.R. No. L-19060. May 20, 1964.]

IGNACIO GERONA, MARIA CONCEPCION GERONA, FRANClSCO

GERONA and DELFIN GERONA , petitioners, vs . CARMEN DE GUZMAN,
JOSE DE GUZMAN, CLEMENTE DE GUZMAN, FRANCISCO DE
GUZMAN, RUSTICA DE GUZMAN, PACITA DE GUZMAN, and
VICTORIA DE GUZMAN , respondents.

Manuel J. Serapio for petitioners.

D. F. Castro & Associates for respondents.

SYLLABUS

1. PRESCRIPTION OF ACTION FOR PARTITION; STARTS FROM ASSERTION

OF ADVERSE TITLE. — Although, as a general rule, an action for partition among co-
heirs does not prescribe, this is true only as long as the defendants do not hold the
property in question under an adverse title. The statute of limitations operates, as in
other cases, from the moment such adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the
property.
2. ID.; ID.; WHEN ADVERSE TITLE DEEMED SET UP BY CO-HEIRS. — When
respondents executed the deed of extrajudicial settlement stating therein that they are
the sole heirs of the deceased, and secured new transfer certificates of title in their own
name, they thereby excluded the petitioners from the estate of the deceased, and,
consequently, set up a title adverse to them.
3. ID.; ID.; ACTION FOR RECONVEYANCE BASED ON FRAUD MAY BE BARRED
BY STATURE OF LIMITATIONS. — An action for reconveyance of real property based
upon a constructive or implied trust, resulting from fraud, may be barred by the statute
of limitations.
4. ID.; ID.; ID.; DISCOVERY OF FRAUD COUNTED FROM REGISTRATION OF
DEED AND ISSUANCE OF NEW TITLES. — The action to annul a deed of extrajudicial
settlement upon the ground of fraud may be led within four years from the discovery
of the fraud. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place when said instrument was
led with the Register of Deeds and new certi cates of title were issued in the name of
the respondents exclusively.

DECISION

CONCEPCION , J : p

Appeal by certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals, a rming that of the
Court of First Instance of Bulacan.
In the complaint, led with the latter court on September 4, 1958, petitioners
herein, namely, Ignacio, Maria Concepcion, Francisco and Del n, all surnamed Gerona,
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 allege that they are the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman;
that the latter, who died on August 9, 1941 was a legitimate daughter of Marcelo de
Guzman and his rst wife, Teodora de la Cruz; that after the death of his rst wife,
Marcelo de Guzman married Camila Ramos, who begot him several children, namely,
respondents Carmen, Jose, Clemente, Francisco, Rustica, Pacita and Victoria, all
surnamed De Guzman; that Marcelo de Guzman died on September 11, 1945; that
subsequently, or on May 6, 1948, respondents executed a deed of "extra-judicial
settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman", fraudulently
misrepresenting therein that they were the only surviving heirs of the deceased Marcelo
de Guzman, although they well knew that petitioners were, also, his forced heirs; that
respondents had thereby succeeded fraudulently in causing the transfer certi cates of
title to seven (7) parcels of land, issued in the name of said deceased, to be cancelled
and new transfer certi cates of title to be issued in their own name, in the proportion of
1/7th individual interest for each; that such fraud was discovered by the petitioners
only the year before the institution of this case; that petitioners forthwith demanded
from respondents their (petitioners') share in said properties, to the extent of 1/8th
interest thereon; and that the respondents refused to heed said demand, thereby
causing damages to the petitioners. Accordingly, the latter prayed that judgment be
rendered nullifying said deed of extra-judicial settlement, insofar as it deprives them of
their participation of 1/8th of the properties in litigation; ordering the respondents to
reconvey to petitioners their aforementioned share in said properties; ordering the
register of deeds to cancel the transfer certi cates of title secured by respondents as
above stated and to issue new certi cates of title in the name of both the petitioners
and the respondents in the proportion of 1/8th for the former and 7/8th for the latter;
ordering the respondents to render accounts of the income of said properties and to
deliver to petitioners their lawful share therein; and sentencing respondents to pay
damages and attorney's fees.
In their answer, respondents maintained that petitioners' mother, the deceased
Placida de Guzman, was not entitled to share in the estate of Marcelo de Guzman, she
being merely a spurious child of the latter, and that petitioners' action is barred by the
statute of limitations. cdpr

After appropriate proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision nding that
petitioners' mother was a legitimate child, by first marriage, of Marcelo de Guzman; that
the properties described in the complaint belonged to the conjugal partnership of
Marcelo de Guzman and his second wife, Camila Ramos; and that petitioners' action
has already prescribed, and, accordingly, dismissing the complaint without costs. On
appeal taken by the petitioners, this decision was a rmed by the Court of Appeals,
with costs against them.
Petitioners maintain that since they and respondents are co-heirs of the
deceased Marcelo de Guzman, the present action for partition of the latter's estate is
not subject to the statute of limitations of action; that, if affected by said statute, the
period of four (4) years therein prescribed did not begin to run until actual discovery of
the fraud perpetrated by respondents, which, it is claimed, took place in 1956 or 1957;
and that, accordingly, said period had not expired when the present action was
commenced on November 4, 1958.
Petitioners' contention is untenable. Although, as a general rule, an action for
partition among co-heirs does not prescribe, this is true only as long as the defendants
do not hold the property in question under an adverse title (Cordova vs. Cordova, L-
9936, January 14, 1948). The statute of limitations operates, as in other cases, from the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 moment such adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property (Ramos vs.
Ramos, 45 Phil., 362; Bargayo vs. Camumot, 40 Phil., 857; Castro vs. Echarri, 20 Phil.,
23).
When respondents executed the aforementioned deed of extra- judicial
settlement stating therein that they are the sole heirs of the late Marcelo de Guzman,
and secured new transfer certi cates of title in their own name, they thereby excluded
the petitioners from the estate of the deceased, and, consequently, set up a title
adverse to them. And this is why petitioners have brought this action for the annulment
of said deed upon the ground that the same is tainted with fraud.
Although, there are some decisions to the contrary (Jacinto vs. Mendoza, 105
Phil., 260; Cuison vs. Fernandez, 105 Phil., 135; Marabiles vs. Quito, 100 Phil., 64; and
Sevilla vs. De los Angeles, 97 Phil., 875), it is already settled in this jurisdiction that an
action for reconveyance of real property based upon a constructive or implied trust,
resulting from fraud, may be barred by the statute of limitations (Candelaria vs.
Romero, 109 Phil., 500; Alzona vs. Capunita, L-10220, February 28, 1962).
Inasmuch as petitioners seek to annul the aforementioned deed of "extra-judicial
settlement" upon the ground of fraud in the execution thereof, the action therefor may
be led within four (4) years from the discovery of the fraud (Mauricio vs. Villanueva, L-
11072, September 24, 1959). Such discovery is deemed to have taken place, in the
case at bar, on June 25, 1948, when said instrument was led with the Register of
Deeds and new certi cates of title were issued in the name of respondents exclusively,
for the registration of the deed of extra-judicial settlement constitutes constructive
notice to whole world (Diaz vs. Gorricho, 103 Phil., 261; Avecilla vs. Yatco, L-11578, May
14, 1958; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. vs. Magdangal, L-15539, January 30, 1962; Lopez vs.
Gonzaga, L-18788, January 31, 1964).
As correctly stated in the decision of the trial court:
"In the light of the foregoing it must, therefore, be held that plaintiffs
learned, at least constructively, of the allege fraud committed against them by
defendants on 25 June 1948 when the deed of extrajudicial settlement of the
estate of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman was registered in the registry of deeds
of Bulacan, Plaintiffs' complaint in this case was not led until 4 November 1958,
or more than 10 years thereafter. Plaintiff Ignacio Gerona became of age on 3
March 1948. He is deemed to have discovered defendants' fraud on 25 June 1948
and had, therefore, only 4 years from the said date within which to le this action.
Plaintiff Maria Concepcion Gerona became of age on 8 December 1949, or after
the registration of the deed of extra-judicial settlement. She also had only the
remainder of the period of 4 years from 8 December 1949 within which to
commence her action. Plaintiff Francisco Gerona became of age only on 9
January 1952 so that he was still minor when he gained knowledge (even if only
constructive) of the deed of extra-judicial settlement on 25 June 1948. Likewise,
plaintiff Del n Gerona became of legal age on 5 August 1954, so that he was still
a minor at the time he gained knowledge (although constructive) of the deed of
extra-judicial settlement on 25 June 1948. Francisco Gerona and Del n Gerona
had, therefore, two years after the removal of their disability within which to
commence their action (Section 45, paragraph 3, in relation to Section 43, Act
190), that is January 29, 1952, with respect to Francisco, and 5 August 1954, with
respect to Delfin."

WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby a rmed, with costs
against petitioners herein. It is so ordered.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Bengzon, C.J., Bautista Angelo, Reyes, J.B.L., Barrera, Paredes, Regala and
Makalintal, JJ., concur.
Padilla, Labrador andDizon, JJ., took no part.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com