It is an established rule that an action to quiet title to property in
the possession of a plaintiff is imprescriptible.[10]
Inasmuch as it is alleged in paragraph 3 of Frial's
complaint, that Felipa Faja
has been in possession of the property since 1945 up to the present or for a
period of 30 years, her cause of action for reconveyance,
which in effect seeks to quiet her title to the property, falls within that
rule. If at all, the period of
prescription began to run against Felipa Faja only from the time she was served with copy of the
complaint in 1975 giving her notice that the property she was occupying was
titled in the name of Indalecio Frial. There is settled jurisprudence that one who
is in actual possession of a piece of land claiming to be owner thereof may
wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking
steps to vindicate his right, the reason for the rule being, that 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.[11]
No better situation can be conceived at the moment for Us to apply this rule on
equity than that of herein petitioners whose mother, Felipa
Faja, was in possession of the litigated property for
no less than 30 years and was suddenly confronted with a claim that the land
she had been occupying and cultivating all these years, was titled in the name
of a third person. We hold that in such
a situation the right to quiet title to the property, to seek its reconveyance and annul any certificate of title covering
it, accrued only from the time the one in possession was made aware of a claim
adverse to his own, and it is only then that the statutory period of
prescription commences to run against such possessor.
No comments:
Post a Comment