Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila THIRD DIVISION G.R. No.

159578 February 18, 2009

ROGELI ! CL G a"# !ELINO ! CL G $#e%ea&e#', &ub&()(u(e# by RO!EL M. ! CL G, a"# !RI N M. ! CL G, Petitioners, vs. ELINO M C *ILIG, !EL M C *ILIG, CONR !O M C *ILIG, LOREN+ * ,ER a"# ,ENIT !EL ROS RIO, Respondents. R USTRI -M RTINE+, J.: #efore us is petitioners$ Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision dated %ul& '(, '))( *here *e affir+ed the Decision dated October ,-, ')), and the Resolution dated .u/ust -, '))0 of the 1ourt of .ppeals 21.3 in 1.45.R. 1V No. 6(67(. Records sho* that *hile the land *as re/istered in the na+e of petitioner Ro/elia in ,7(6, respondents8 co+plaint for reconve&ance *as filed in ,77,, *hich *as *ithin the ,)4&ear prescriptive period. 9e ruled that since petitioners bou/ht the propert& *hen it *as still an unre/istered land, the defense of havin/ purchased the propert& in /ood faith is unavailin/. 9e affir+ed the Re/ional Trial 1ourt 2RT13 in findin/ that petitioners should pa& respondents their correspondin/ share in the produce of the sub:ect land fro+ the ti+e the& *ere deprived thereof until the possession is restored to the+. In their Motion for Reconsideration, petitioners contend that the ,)4&ear period for reconve&ance is applicable if the action is based on an i+plied or a constructive trust; that since respondents$ action for reconve&ance *as based on fraud, the action +ust be filed *ithin four &ears fro+ the discover& of the fraud, citin/ Gerona v. De Guzman,, *hich *as reiterated in Balbin v. Medalla.' 9e do not a/ree. In Caro v. Court of Appeals,0 *e have e<plicitl& held that =(.e /re&%r)/()0e /er)o# 1or (.e re%o"0eya"%e o1 1rau#u2e"(2y re3)&(ere# rea2 /ro/er(y )& 10 year& re%4o"e# 1ro5 (.e #a(e o1 (.e )&&ua"%e o1 (.e %er()1)%a(e o1 ()(2e < < <.=6 Ho*ever, not*ithstandin/ petitioners$ un+eritorious ar/u+ent, the 1ourt dee+s it necessar& to +a>e certain clarifications. 9e have earlier ruled that respondents$ action for reconve&ance had not prescribed, since it *as filed *ithin the ,)4&ear prescriptive period. However, a review of the factual antecedents of the case shows that respondents' action for reconve ance was not even sub!ect to prescription. The deed of sale e<ecuted b& Ma<i+a in favor of petitioners *as null and void, since Ma<i+a *as not the o*ner of the land she sold to petitioners, and the one4half northern portion of such land *as o*ned b& respondents. #ein/ an absolute nullit&, the deed is sub:ect to attac> an&ti+e, in accordance *ith .rticle ,6,) of the 1ivil 1ode that an action to declare the ine<istence of a void contract does not prescribe. !i>e*ise, *e have consistentl& ruled that *hen there is a sho*in/ of such ille/alit&, the propert& re/istered is dee+ed to be si+pl& held in trust for the real o*ner b& the person in *hose na+e it is re/istered, and the for+er then has the ri/ht to sue for the reconve&ance of the propert&.? .n action for reconve&ance based on a void contract is i+prescriptible. @ .s lon/ as the land *ron/full& re/istered under the Torrens s&ste+ is still in the na+e of the person *ho caused such re/istration, an action in persona+ *ill lie to co+pel hi+ to reconve& the propert& to the real o*ner. - In this case, title to the propert& is in the SO!"TION

na+e of petitioner Ro/elia; thus, the trial court correctl& ordered the reconve&ance of the sub:ect land to respondents. Petitioners ne<t contend that the& are possessors in /ood faith, thus, the a*ard of da+a/es should not have been i+posed. The& further contend that under .rticle ?66, a possessor in /ood faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession is le/all& interrupted; thus, if indeed petitioners are :ointl& and severall& liable to respondents for the produce of the sub:ect land, the liabilit& should be rec>oned onl& for ,77, and not ,7(6. 9e find partial +erit in this ar/u+ent. .rticle ?'( of the 1ivil 1ode provides that possession acAuired in /ood faith does not lose this character, e<cept in a case and fro+ the +o+ent facts e<ist *hich sho* that the possessor is not una*are that he possesses the thin/ i+properl& or *ron/full&. Possession in /ood faith ceases fro+ the +o+ent defects in the title are +ade >no*n to the possessors, b& e<traneous evidence or b& suit for recover& of the propert& b& the true o*ner. 9hatever +a& be the cause or the fact fro+ *hich it can be deduced that the possessor has >no*led/e of the defects of his title or +ode of acAuisition, it +ust be considered sufficient to sho* bad faith.( Such interruption ta>es place upon service of su++ons. 7
lawphil.net

.rticle ?66 of the sa+e 1ode provides that a possessor in /ood faith is entitled to the fruits onl& so lon/ as his possession is not le/all& interrupted. Records sho* that petitioners received a su++ons to/ether *ith respondents$ co+plaint on .u/ust ?, ,77,;,) thus, petitioners$ /ood faith ceased on the da& the& received the su++ons. 1onseAuentl&, petitioners should pa& respondents ,) cavans of pala per annu+ be/innin/ .u/ust ?, ,77, instead of ,7(6. Binall&, petitioner *ould li>e this 1ourt to loo> into the findin/ of the RT1 that =since Ma<i+a died in October ,770, *hatever char/es and clai+s petitioners +a& recover fro+ her e<pired *ith her=; and that the proper person to be held liable for da+a/es to be a*arded to respondents should be Ma<i+a Divison or her estate, since she +isrepresented herself to be the true o*ner of the sub:ect land. 9e are not persuaded. Notabl&, petitioners never raised this issue in their appellants$ brief or in their +otion for reconsideration filed before the 1.. In fact, the& never raised this +atter before us *hen the& filed their petition for revie*. Thus, petitioners cannot raise the sa+e in this +otion for reconsideration *ithout offendin/ the basic rules of fair pla&, :ustice and due process, speciall& since Ma<i+a *as not substituted at all b& her heirs after the pro+ul/ation of the RT1 Decision. 6*EREFORE, petitioners8 Motion for Reconsideration is P RTL7 GR NTE!. The Decision of the 1ourt of .ppeals dated %ul& '(, '))( is MO!IFIE! onl& *ith respect to prescription as discussed in the te<t of herein Resolution, and the dispositive portion of the Decision is MO!IFIE! to the effect that petitioners are ordered to pa& respondents ,) cavans of pala per annu+ be/innin/ .u/ust ?, ,77, instead of ,7(6. SO OR!ERE!. M . LICI USTRI -M RTINE+ .ssociate %ustice .ctin/ 1hairperson 9 1ON1"RC LEON R!O . 8UISUM,INGD .ssociate %ustice NTONIO T. C RPIODD .ssociate %ustice MINIT 9. C*ICO-N + RIO .ssociate %ustice

NTONIO E!U R!O ,. N C*UR .ssociate %ustice TTEST TION

I attest that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case *as assi/ned to the *riter of the opinion of the 1ourt8s Division. M . LICI USTRI -M RTINE+DDD .ssociate %ustice .ctin/ 1hairperson, Special Third Division 1 RTIBI1.TION

Pursuant to Section ,0, .rticle VIII of the 1onstitution, and the Division .ctin/ 1hairperson8s .ttestation, it is hereb& certified that the conclusions in the above Resolution had been reached in consultation before the case *as assi/ned to the *riter of the opinion of the 1ourt8s Division. RE7N TO S. PUNO 1hief %ustice

Foo("o(e&
D

In lieu of %ustice 1onsuelo Enares4Santia/o, per Special Order No. ?@6 dated Bebruar& ,', '))7. 1arpio, ". desi/nated +e+ber in lieu of Re&es, "., 2ret.3 per Raffle dated Bebruar& ,,, '))7. In lieu of %ustice 1onsuelo Enares4Santia/o, per Special Order No. ?@0 dated Bebruar& ,', '))7.

DD

DDD

5.R. No. !46'?(, %anuar& ,(, ,7?,, ,, S1R. ,?0. ,7? Phil. 6-? 2,7(,3. 5.R. No. -@,6(, Dece+ber '), ,7(7, ,() S1R. 6),. Id. at 6)-. #alomon v. $ntermediate Appellate Court, 5.R. No. -)'@0, Ma& ,6, ,77), ,(? S1R. 0?', 0@0. Id., %acsamana v. Court of Appeals, 0?, Phil. ?'@, ?06 2,77(3. Id., citin/ Baranda v. Baranda, '06 Phil. @6, -- 2,7(-3. &on' v. Carpio, 5.R. No. ?)'@6, October ',, ,77,, ')0 S1R. ,,(, ,'?.

'

Id., citin/ Manoto( )ealt , $nc. v. *ecson, 5.R. No. !46-6-?, .u/ust ,7, ,7((, ,@6 S1R. ?(-, ?7', citin/Mindanao Academ , $nc. v. +ap, ,', Phil. ')6, ',) 2,7@?3.
7 ,)

Records, pp. ?4@.