NOTES on prescription and pacto de retro

PRESCRIPTION

From the foregoing premises, the trial court erred in finding prescription. Prescription, as a ground for a motion to dismiss, is adequate when the complaint, on its face, shows that the action has already prescribed.³⁰ Such is not the case in this instance. Respondents have duly averred continuous possession until 1991 when such was allegedly disturbed by Aqualab. Being in possession of the subject lots—hypothetically admitted by Aqualab—respondents’ right to reconveyance or annulment of title has not prescribed or is not time-barred.

Verily, an action for annulment of title or reconveyance based on fraud is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession of the property subject of the acts.³¹ And the prescriptive period for the reconveyance of fraudulently registered real property is 10 years, reckoned from the date of the issuance of the certificate of title, if the plaintiff is not in possession.³² Thus, one who is in actual possession of a piece of land on a claim of ownership thereof may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right.³³

In the instant case, as hypothetically admitted, respondents were in possession until 1991, and until such possession is disturbed, the prescriptive period does not run. Since respondents filed their complaint in 1994, or three years after their possession was allegedly disturbed, it is clear that prescription has not set in, either due to fraud or constructive trust.

Besides, if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property, remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.³⁴

THIRD DIVISION

G.R. No. 182673               October 5, 2009
AQUALAB PHILIPPINES, INC., Petitioner,
vs.
HEIRS OF MARCELINO PAGOBO
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Now, when Teodoro Husain failed to redeem the land within the stipulated period, i.e., January 9, 1925, its ownership became consolidated in the appellee. True the successive sales are in a private instrument, but they are valid just the same.⁵ By the delivery of possession of the land on April 2, 1919 the sale was consummated and title was transferred to the appellee

Now, when Rosendo Buhian failed to redeem the land within the stipulated period, its ownership became consolidated with Jose Flores. The delivery of possession of the land, and the handing of the land title from Rosendo to Jose, connotes the consummation of the sale, and the eventual transfer of said title to the latter.

ELIAS GALLAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs.HERMENEGILDA HUSAIN, ET AL., defendants.
BONIFACIO HUSAIN, defendant-appellant. EN BANC G.R. No. L-20954 ,May 24, 1967