032 Gerona v.

De Guzman (CELAJE) surnamed Gerona, allege that they are the legitimate children of Domingo
Gerona and Placida de Guzman.
G.R. No. L-19060 | May 29, 1964 | Concepcion, J. | Prescription for an action to
nullify a deed of Extrajudicial Settlement 2. That the latter, Placida, who died on August 9, l941 was a legitimate
daughter of Marcelo de Guzman and his first wife, Teodora de la Cruz.
PETITIONER: IGNACIO GERONA, MARIA CONCEPCION GERONA,
FRANCISCO GERONA AND DELFIN GERONA (grand-children from 3. That after the death of his first wife, Marcelo de Guzman married Camila
Marcelo's 1st wife) Ramos, who begot him several children, namely, respondents (children
from second wife) Carmen, Jose, Clemente, Francisco, Rustica, Pacita and
RESPONDENTS: CARMEN DE GUZMAN, JOSE DE GUZMAN, Victoria, all surnamed De Guzman; that Marcelo de Guzman died on
CLEMENTE DE GUZMAN, FRANCISCO DE GUZMAN, RUSTICA DE September 11, 1945.
GUZMAN, PACITA DE GUZMAN, AND VICTORIA DE GUZMAN
(children from Marcelo's 2nd wife) 4. That subsequently, or on May 6, 1948, respondents (children from the
second wife) executed a deed of "extrajudicial settlement of the estate of the
SUMMARY: In 1948, respondents (children of Marcelo de Guzman from his deceased Marcelo de Guzman," fraudulently misrepresenting therein that
second wife) executed a deed of extrajudicial settlement which fraudulently they were the only surviving heirs of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman,
excluded the petitioners (grandchildren of Marcelo from his first wife). But it although they well knew that petitioners (grandchildren from the first wife)
was only in 1956 or 1957 that petitioners discovered the fraud. In 1958, were, also, his forced heirs.
petitioners then filed an action to nullify said deed of extra-judicial settlement.
Lower courts dismissed petitioner's claim on the ground of prescription. 5. That respondents had thereby succeeded fraudulently in causing the transfer
certificates of title to seven (7) parcels of land, issued in the name of said
W/N prescription applies and when does it begin? Yes and from registration deceased, to be cancelled and new transfer certificates of title to be issued in
of the deed of extrajudicial settlement with the Register of Deed in 1948. their own name, in the proportion of l/7th individual interest for each.
Although, as a general rule, an action for partition among co-heirs does not 6. That such fraud was discovered by the petitioners only the year before the
prescribe, this is true only as long as the defendants do not hold the property in institution of this case.
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 7. Accordingly, the petitioners prayed that judgment be rendered nullifying
property. When respondents executed the aforementioned deed of extra-judicial said deed of extra-judicial settlement, insofar as it deprives them of their
settlement stating therein that they are the sole heirs of the late Marcelo de participation of l/8th of the properties in litigation; ordering the respondents
Guzman, and secured new transfer certificates of title in their own name, they to reconvey to petitioners their aforementioned share in said properties;
thereby excluded the petitioners from the estate of the deceased, and, 8. ordering the register of deeds to cancel the transfer certificates of title
consequently, set up a title adverse to them. Further, because the grounds to secured by respondents as above stated; and sentencing respondents to pay
annul is based on the ground of fraud, the action must have been filed within 4 damages and attorney's fees. 
years from the discovery of the fraud. However, the fraud here was deemed to
be constructively discovered in 1948, from the moment the deed of extrajudicial 9. In their answer, respondents maintained that petitioners' mother, the
settlement was registered with the Register of Deeds, for registration constitutes deceased Placida de Guzman, was not entitled to share in the estate of
as constructive notice to the world. Marcelo de Guzman, she being merely a spurious child of the latter, and
that petitioners' action is barred by the statute of limitations. 
DOCTRINE: Prescription applies to bar an action to nullify a deed of
extrajudicial settlement or an action for partition of an estate when some of the 10. After appropriate proceedings, the trial court rendered a decision finding
parties are holding the property under an adverse title vis-à-vis the other parties. 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
FACTS: Ramos; and that petitioners' action has already prescribed, and,
accordingly, dismissing the complaint without costs. CA affirmed. 
1. In a complaint filed in 1958, petitioners (grand-children from the first wife)
herein, namely, Ignacio, Maria Concepcion, Francisco and Delfin, all 11. 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 statute of limitations.
estate is not subject to the statute of limitations of action.
5. Inasmuch as petitioners seek to annul the aforementioned deed of "extra-
12. Petitioners further claim that, if affected by said statute, the period of four judicial settlement" upon the ground of fraud in the execution thereof, the
(4) years therein prescribed did not begin to run until actual discovery of the action therefor may be filed within four (4) years from the discovery of the
fraud perpetrated by respondents, which, it is claimed, took place in 1956 or fraud.
1957; and that, accordingly, said period had not expired when the present
6. Such discovery is deemed to have taken place, in the case at bar, on June
action was commenced on November 4, 1958. 
25, 1948, when said instrument was filed with the Register of Deeds Land
new certificates of title were issued in the name of respondents exclusively,
for the registration of the deed of extra-judicial settlement constitutes
ISSUES:
constructive notice to the whole world.
1. W/N the statute of limitations applies to an action to nullify an extra-
judicial settlement? Yes. The statute of limitations operates from the
moment such adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property,
which, in this case, was when respondents executed the deed of extra-
judicial settlement which excluded herein petitioners.
2. W/N prescription started from actual discovery of the fraud in 1956 or
1957? No. It started when the deed of extra-judicial settlement was filed
with the Registered of Deeds for the registration of the deed of extra-
judicial settlement constitutes constructive notice to the whole world.

RULING: WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby affirmed,

RATIO:
1. 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.
2. The statute of limitations operates, as in other cases, from the moment such
adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property.
3. 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 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. 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. 
4. Although, there are some decisions to the contrary, 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