*  SECOND DIVISION.

221

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 221

Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora

G.R. No. 200558. July 1, 2015.*

penalize neglect or sleeping upon one’s right, but rather to
 
avoid recognizing a right when to do so would result in a clearly
CONSUELO V. PANGASINAN and ANNABELLA V.
inequitable situation. The time-honored rule anchored on public
BORROMEO, petitioners, vs. CRISTINA DISONGLO-
policy is that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim or
ALMAZORA, RENILDA ALMAZORA-CASUBUAN,
demand has become “stale,” or who has acquiesced for an
RODOLFO CASUBUAN, SUSANA ALMAZORA-
unreasonable length of time, or who has not been vigilant or who
MENDIOLA, CARLOS MENDIOLA, CECILIO
has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or inattention. In
ALMAZORA and NENITA ALMAZORA, respondents.
other words, public policy requires, for peace of society, the
discouragement of claims grown stale for non-assertion; thus
Remedial Law; Civil Procedure; Appeals; Petition for Review
laches is an impediment to the assertion or enforcement of a right
on Certiorari; As a general rule, the Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule
which has become, under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair
45 petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law.—As a
to permit.
general rule, the Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 petition is
limited to the review of pure questions of law. A question of law Same; Same; Elements of.—The four (4) elements of laches, as
arises when the doubt or difference exists as to what the law is on first prescribed by this Court in Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho, 96 Phil.
a certain state of facts. Negatively put, Rule 45 does not allow the 622 (1954), are as follows: (1) conduct on the part of the
review of questions of fact. A question of fact exists when the defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the
doubt or difference arises as to the truth or falsity of the alleged situation of which complaint is made for which the complaint
facts. seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights,
the complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the
Civil Law; Laches; Words and Phrases; Laches is defined as
defendant’s conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to
the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length
institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the
of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
defendant that the complainant would assert the right on which
should have been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert
he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in
a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that
the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not
the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to
held to be barred.
assert it.—Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that which, by Same; Same; The law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber
exercising due diligence, could or should have been done earlier; it on their rights.—A person, endowed with properties and
is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable entitlements, but chose to lie quietly as decades passed by,
time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert watching his property wither away, allowing innocent bystanders
it either has abandoned it or declined to assert it. to pick the fruits of his unguarded trees, instead of safeguarding
his rights through the accessibly and necessary legal means, does
Same; Same; The principle of laches is a creation of equity
not deserve the protection of equity. The law aids the vigilant, not
which, as such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping
those who slumber on their rights.
upon one’s right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right when to do
so would result in a clearly inequitable situation.—The principle Same; Prescription; There are two (2) kinds of prescription
of laches is a creation of equity which, as such, is applied not provided in the Civil Code. One is acquisitive, that is, the
really to acquisition of a right by the lapse of time as expounded in
paragraph 1, Article 1106; The other kind is extinctive prescription
whereby rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time as defined
_______________
in paragraph 2, Article 1106 and Article 1139.—There are two
kinds of prescription provided in the Civil Code. One is of the property. It is now well-settled that the prescriptive period
acquisitive, that is, the acquisition of a right to recover property obtained by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an
implied trust under Article 1456 of the
222
223

222 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 223
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
  by the lapse of time as expounded in paragraph 1, Article
1106. Acquisitive prescription is also known as adverse possession Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant to Article 1144. The
and usucapcion. The other kind is extinctive prescription whereby prescriptive period to enforce the constructive trust shall be
rights and actions are lost by the lapse of time as defined in counted from the alleged fraudulent registration or date of
paragraph 2, Article 1106 and Article 1139. Another name for issuance of the certificate of title over the property. The ten-year
extinctive prescription is litigation of action. These two kinds of prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to
prescription should not be interchanged. In a plethora of cases, reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of
the Court has held that Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529 covers the property.
acquisitive prescription. A registered land therein can never be
Remedial Law; Evidence; Clear and Convincing Evidence;
acquired by adverse possession. In the case at bench, however, it
Fraud; The imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the
was extinctive prescription, and not acquisitive prescription,
presentation of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations
which barred the action of petitioners. As the CA correctly held,
will not suffice to sustain the existence of fraud.—Fraud must be
the action must fail, not because respondents adversely occupied
proven by clear and convincing evidence and not merely by a
the property, but because petitioners failed to institute their suit
preponderance thereof. Clear and convincing proof is more than
within the prescriptive period under Article 1144 of the Civil
mere preponderance, but not to extent of such certainty as is
Code.
required beyond reasonable doubt as in criminal cases. The
Same; Extinctive Prescription; To determine the applicable imputation of fraud in a civil case requires the presentation of
period of extinctive prescription, the nature and circumstances of clear and convincing evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to
the case should be considered.—To determine the applicable sustain the existence of fraud. The burden of evidence rests on the
period of extinctive prescription, the nature and circumstances of part of the plaintiff or the party alleging fraud.
the case should be considered. According to petitioners, the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title was given to Conrado for PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and
safekeeping in 1945. Allegedly, Conrado employed fraud and bad resolution of the Court of Appeals.
faith when he drafted the Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
Parcel of Registered Land on January 9, 1949, and transferred   Rodrigo L. Yuson for petitioners.
the title of the land to his name with the issuance of TCT No.   Fornier, Fornier, Saño and Lagumbay Law Firm for
35282 on June 17, 1965; and because of the purported fraud respondents.
committed by Conrado against petitioners, an implied
constructive trust was created by operation of law, with Conrado MENDOZA, J.:
as trustee and Aurora as cestui que trust.  
The present case demonstrates the legal principle that
Same; Same; Prescriptive Period; Implied Trust; It is now the law aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their
well-settled that the prescriptive period to recover property rights. Vigilantibus, sed non dormientibus jura
obtained by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an implied trust under subverniunt.
Article 1456 of the Civil Code, is ten (10) years pursuant to Article This is a petition for review on certiorari seeking to
1144.—Constructive trusts are created by the construction of reverse and set aside the July 28, 2011 Decision1 and the
equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and prevent February 3,
unjust enrichment. Article 1456 of the Civil Code provides that a
person acquiring property through fraud becomes, by operation of
_______________
law, a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the real owner
 1   Penned by Associate Justice Samuel H. Gaerlan, with Associate 3  Penned by Judge Zosimo V. Escano; CA Rollo, pp. 55-63.
Justices Rosmari D. Carandang and Ramon R. Garcia, concurring; Rollo, 4  Records, Vol. I, p. 7.
pp. 17-24. 5  Records, Vol. II, p. 673.

224 225

224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 225
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora

2012 Resolution2 of the Court of Appeals (CA), in C.A.- Conrado and that the subject property had been sold to
G.R. CV No. 84529, which affirmed the June 29, 2004 Fullway Development Corporation (Fullway) by the heirs of
Decision3 of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 259, Conrado in consideration of P4,000,000.00.6
Parañaque City (RTC) in Civil Case No. 96-0206, a case for Aurora was shocked to learn that the subject property
damages. was already transferred to Conrado and sold for a meager
  amount. On October 30, 1995, she sent a letter to the heirs
The Facts of Conrado demanding the delivery of the payment they
  received for the sale of the subject property; but it was
The subject property is a parcel of land with an area of unheeded.
572 square meters located in Brgy. Sto. Domingo, Biñan, On May 9, 1996, Aurora together with her husband,
Laguna. It was registered in the name of Aquilina Arturo, filed a complaint for damages7 against Cristina and
Martinez (Aquilina) under Transfer Certificate of Title the other heirs of Conrado (respondents) before the RTC.
(TCT) No. T-18729 by the Register of Deeds of Laguna on They contended that the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No.
July 29, 1939.4 T-18729 was only given to Conrado for safekeeping. The
After the liberation of Manila from the Japanese complaint, however, admitted that the family of Conrado
military occupation in 1945, Aquilina and her maternal had been staying on, and using, the subject property since
grandmother, Leoncia Almendral (Leoncia), learned that 1912 with the permission and generosity of Aquilina and
their house on Zabala Street, Tondo, Manila, was ruined by Leoncia.8
the war. To rebuild their house, they borrowed money from Aurora asserted that, through the years, she repeatedly
their relative, Conrado Almazora (Conrado). Thus, their asked Conrado to return the owner’s copy of the title but
house was reconstructed. In return, Leoncia entrusted to the latter procrastinated, giving all kinds of excuses, until
Conrado the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. T-18729 he died in 1972; that thereafter, Aurora asked Cristina for
covering the subject property in Biñan, Laguna. the copy of the title but the latter also ignored her request;
Consequently, Conrado and his family remained in the said that the subsequent sale of the subject property to Fullway
property. was without Aurora’s authorization, and, thus, the
Following the death of Aquilina on July 19, 1949, the payment received by respondents for the sale of the subject
title of the subject property was transferred to Aurora property should be turned over to her; and that she prayed
Morales-Vivar (Aurora), as her sole heir. Accordingly, TCT for moral and exemplary damages.9
No. T-35280 was issued in the name of Aurora5 after TCT On June 24, 1996, respondents filed their answer with
No. T-18729 was cancelled. On February 7, 1972, Conrado compulsory counterclaim. They countered that the subject
passed away. property was properly transferred to Conrado under TCT
Sometime in 1994, Aurora learned from Cristina No. 35282, and, thereafter, in the names of the heirs of
Almazora (Cristina), the widowed spouse of Conrado, that Conrado under TCT No. T-114352. Respondents averred
the title of the subject property had long been transferred that the im-
in the name of
_______________
_______________
6  Id., at p. 663.
2  Id., at pp. 26-27. 7  Records, Vol. I, pp. 1-5.
 8  Id., at p. 2. 15  Records, Vol. II, p. 791.
9  Id., at pp. 3-5.
227
226

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 227

226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
tion of the records, Aurora miserably failed to prove her
putation of fraud on the part of Conrado in the right to the subject property. It explained that even if
registration of the subject property was baseless and this Aurora had a claim on the subject property, she was guilty
assertion of fraud was not transmissible from Conrado to of laches. For many years, Aurora slept on her right over
his heirs, who merely acquired the property through the questioned property and failed to exhaust all means,
succession.10 legal or administrative, to retrieve what was rightfully hers
Respondents raised some special and affirmatives at the earliest possible time.
defenses, among others, that the complaint stated no cause The RTC determined that Conrado was able to transfer
of action and was barred by prescription. A preliminary the title of the subject property in his name on June 17,
hearing for the said defenses was set by the RTC.11 In the 1965 by virtue of a document denominated as “Adjudication
Order,12 dated May 27, 1999, the RTC ruled that the and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of Registered Land,”16 dated
complaint stated a cause of action. January 9, 1949, signed by Aurora and her husband. The
Respondents filed a petition for certiorari13 to assail the signatures of Aurora and her husband, affixed on the deed
said interlocutory order of the RTC before the CA. In its of sale, were not properly controverted by her. The trial
Decision,14 dated February 24, 1999, the CA denied the court found that her allegations of repeated pleas to
same and held that the complaint stated a cause of action, Conrado to return the copy of the title deserved scant
which was an action for damages arising from fraud consideration. It concluded that Aurora was not entitled to
committed by Conrado, as trustee, against Aurora, as cestui damages because there were no clear and cogent grounds to
que trust. The CA further held that the complaint, on its award the same. The decretal portion of the decision reads:
face, did not show that the action had prescribed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, plaintiffs having failed to
Meanwhile, the RTC continued the proceedings and set
prove its case for damages, the same is hereby ordered
the case for trial on the merits. After the parties adduced
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
their respective pieces of evidence, the RTC required them
SO ORDERED.17
to submit their memoranda. Only respondents filed a
memorandum.15  
  Aggrieved, Aurora appealed to the CA. On June 4, 2009,
The RTC’s Ruling the children of Aurora, namely, Consuelo V. Pangasinan,
  Lucio M. Vivar and Annabella V. Borromeo (petitioners),
In its Decision, dated June 29, 2004, the RTC dismissed filed a motion for substitution of party18 after her death on
the complaint. The trial court held that, after a thorough March 26, 2008. In its Resolution,19 dated July 15, 2010,
evalua- the CA granted the motion.

_______________
_______________

10  Id., at pp. 18-28.

16  Id., at pp. 667-668.
11  Id., at p. 74.
17  CA Rollo, p. 63.
12  Id., at pp. 192-194.
18  Id., at pp. 132-133.
13  Id., at pp. 379-398.
19  Id., at pp. 173-174.
14   Penned by Associate Justice Romeo J. Callejo, Sr., with Associate
Justices Fermin A. Martin, Jr. and Mariano M. Umali, concurring; id., at 228
pp. 399-423.
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED I
THE COURT OF APPEALS GRAVELY ERRED IN
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE LOWER COURT
DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES FILED BY
The CA’s Ruling AURORA MORALES-VIVAR, WHICH DECISIONS ARE ALL
  CONTRARY TO LAW.
In the assailed Decision, dated July 28, 2011, the CA II
denied the appeal of petitioners. It held that it took Aurora THE COURT OF APPEALS SERIOUSLY ERRED IN NOT
more than 50 years to act on Conrado’s withholding of the RULING THAT THE ACQUISITION OF CONRADO
title covering the subject property. As early as 1945, the ALMAZORA, RESPONDENTS’ PREDECESSOR-IN-
title was already in the possession of Conrado. The CA INTEREST, OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IS INVALID
ruled that petitioners were barred by laches as Aurora AND PRODUCED NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER BECAUSE
should have been impervious in asserting her ownership NOT ALL THE ELEMENTS OF LACHES, AS TO DEPRIVE
and made judicial demands to return the title and the AURORA MORALES-VIVAR OF HER OWNERSHIP, ARE
property. PRESENT IN THE CASE AT BAR.21
The appellate court added that even on the aspect of
prescription of actions, the case would not prosper either. It  
explained that the prescriptive period to recover property Petitioners assert that they are not guilty of laches.
obtained through fraud or mistake giving rise to an implied When Aurora was told that the subject property was
trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code was 10 years, already in the name of Conrado in April 1994, she
pursuant to Article 1144. This 10-year prescriptive period immediately filed a complaint for damages on May 2, 1996.
began from the time the land was registered on June 17, Petitioners also claim that prescription is not a valid
1965. Accordingly, Aurora had only until June 17, 1975 defense to defeat the title of Aurora. Section 47 of
within which to file her action. Evidently, the suit was Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 1529 states that no title to
commenced only on May 12, 1996, beyond its prescription registered land in derogation of the title of the registered
period. The dispositive portion of the decision states: owner shall be acquired by prescription or adverse
possession.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant petition is
On September 24, 2012, respondents filed their
DENIED and the Decision dated June 29, 2004 of the Regional
Comment,22 arguing that petitioners’ assertions were
Trial Court of Parañaque City, Branch 259 in Civil Case No. 96-
tenuous. Aurora slept on her rights for more than 50 years,
0206 is hereby AFFIRMED.
impervious in
SO ORDERED.20

  _______________
Petitioners moved for reconsideration, but their motion
21  Id., at p. 10.
was denied by the CA in the assailed Resolution, dated
22  Id., at pp. 36-49.
February 3, 2012.
Hence, this petition, raising the following: 230

_______________
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
20  Rollo, p. 23. Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
229
asserting her ownership of the subject property, thereby
losing the same by laches.
VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 229 On December 11, 2012, petitioners filed their Reply,23
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora claiming that the CA observed that respondents might
have manipulated the said title to their benefit and
Issues
advantage. Respondents’ hands were unclean because of The principle of laches is a creation of equity which, as
their bad faith and misrepresentation. such, is applied not really to penalize neglect or sleeping
  upon one’s right, but rather to avoid recognizing a right
The Court’s Ruling when to do so would result in a clearly inequitable
  situation.26 The time-honored rule anchored on public
The petition is bereft of merit. policy is that relief will be denied to a litigant whose claim
  or demand has become “stale,” or who has acquiesced for an
The petition raises unreasonable length of time, or who has not been vigilant
questions of fact or who has slept on his rights either by negligence, folly or
  inattention. In other words, public policy requires, for
As a general rule, the Court’s jurisdiction in a Rule 45 peace of society, the discouragement of claims grown stale
petition is limited to the review of pure questions of law. A for non-assertion; thus laches is an impediment to the
question of law arises when the doubt or difference exists assertion or enforcement of a right which has become,
as to what the law is on a certain state of facts. Negatively under the circumstances, inequitable or unfair to permit.27
put, Rule 45 does not allow the review of questions of fact. The four (4) elements of laches, as first prescribed by
A question of fact exists when the doubt or difference arises this Court in Go Chi Gun v. Co Cho28 are as follows:
as to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts.24
Petitioners challenge the findings of laches, prescription _______________
and lack of bad faith by the CA. To answer these questions,
the Court must review the records to determine whether 25   Metropolitan Bank and Trust Company v. Centro Development
the lower courts properly appreciated the evidence in Corporation, G.R. No. 180974, June 13, 2012, 672 SCRA 325, 338, citing
concluding its findings. Clearly, the questions raised are Municipality of Carcar v. CFI of Cebu, 204 Phil. 719, 723; 119 SCRA 392,
factual. On this ground alone, the present petition under 395-396 (1982).
Rule 45 is dismissible. In the interest of substantial justice, 26  Salandanan v. Court of Appeals, 353 Phil. 114, 120; 290 SCRA 671,
however, the Court deems it proper to reevaluate the 678 (1998).
records. 27  Heirs of Domingo Hernandez, Sr. v. Mingoa, Sr., 623 Phil. 303, 327;
608 SCRA 394, 415 (2009), citing Isabela Colleges, Inc. v. Heirs of Nieves
_______________ Tolentino-Rivera, 397 Phil. 955, 969; 344 SCRA 95, 108 (2000).
28  96 Phil. 622, 637 (1954), citing 19 Am. Jur. 343-344.
23  Id., at pp. 65-68.
24  Salvador v. Rabaja, G.R. No. 199990, February 4, 2015, 749 SCRA 232
654.

231 232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 231
(1) conduct on the part of the defendant, or of one under
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which complaint is
made for which the complaint seeks a remedy;
Petitioners are barred by laches (2) delay in asserting the complainant’s rights, the
  complainant having had knowledge or notice, of the defendant’s
Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to institute a
unreasonable and unexplained length of time to do that suit;
which, by exercising due diligence, could or should have (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant
been done earlier; it is negligence or omission to assert a that the complainant would assert the right on which he bases his
right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption suit; and
that the party entitled to assert it either has abandoned it (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is
or declined to assert it.25 accorded to the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred.29
   A person, endowed with properties and entitlements, but
In the case at bench, the CA correctly held that all the chose to lie quietly as decades passed by, watching his
elements of laches were present. First, Aurora and her property wither away, allowing innocent bystanders to pick
family entrusted to Conrado the owner’s duplicate of the the fruits of his unguarded trees, instead of safeguarding
certificate of title of the subject property in 1945. In their his rights through the accessibly and necessary legal
complaint, petitioners even admitted that Conrado’s family means, does not deserve the protection of equity. The law
had been staying in the subject property since 1912.30 aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights.
Second, it took five decades, from 1945 to 1996, before  
Aurora and petitioners decided to enforce their right The action has prescribed
thereon. Third, respondents who lived all their lives in the  
disputed property apparently were not aware that Aurora On the basis of prescription of actions, the pending
would one day come out and claim ownership thereon. petition must also be denied. Petitioners argue that
Fourth, there was no question that respondents would be prescription shall not lie against their action because a
prejudiced in the event that the suit would be allowed to registered land under Section 47 of P.D. No. 1529 cannot be
prosper. acquired through prescription.34 The argument is patently
The contention of petitioners that they were not in delay erroneous.
in claiming their rights over the subject property is
specious. For 50 years, Aurora and her heirs did not take _______________
any legal step to uphold their claim over the subject
property, despite being fully aware that Conrado and his 31  TSN, August 16, 1999, p. 13.
family were occupying the 32  Id., at pp. 38-39.
33  Records, Vol. II, pp. 619-620.
34   Section 47. Registered land not subject to prescriptions. No title
_______________
to registered land in derogation of the title of the registered owner shall be
29  Vda. de Tirona  v. Encarnacion, 560 Phil. 650, 666; 534 SCRA 394, acquired by prescription or adverse possession.
410-411 (2007).
234
30  Records, Vol. I, p. 2.

233
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 233
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora There are two kinds of prescription provided in the Civil
Code. One is acquisitive, that is, the acquisition of a right
same for a very long time. Even petitioner Consuelo by the lapse of time as expounded in paragraph 1, Article
Vivar-Pangasinan testified that Conrado had been using 1106.35 Acquisitive prescription is also known as adverse
the property for 30 years31 and that Aurora had never possession and usucapcion. The other kind is extinctive
shown her any evidence of ownership of the property.32 prescription whereby rights and actions are lost by the
In their complaint, Aurora claimed that she repeatedly lapse of time as defined in paragraph 2, Article 1106 and
reminded Conrado to return the copy of the title. This, Article 1139.36 Another name for extinctive prescription is
however, is a self-serving allegation without any litigation of action. These two kinds of prescription should
evidentiary substantiation. The two belated demand not be interchanged.37
letters, dated October 30, 1995 and March 5, 1996, sent by In a plethora of cases,38 the Court has held that Section
Aurora’s lawyer before the institution of the present action, 47 of P.D. No. 1529 covers acquisitive prescription. A
are the only tangible assertions of their claim to the registered land therein can never be acquired by adverse
property.33 Indeed, not a scintilla of proof was presented by possession. In the case at bench, however, it was extinctive
Aurora and her heirs to establish that, for 50 years, they prescription, and not acquisitive prescription, which barred
actively manifested to reclaim the title and possession of the action of petitioners. As the CA correctly held, the
the subject property. action must fail, not because respondents adversely
occupied the property, but because petitioners failed to enforce the constructive trust shall be counted from the
institute their suit within the prescriptive period under alleged fraudulent registration or date of issuance of the
Article 1144 of the Civil Code. certificate of title over the property.44 The ten-year
To determine the applicable period of extinctive prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to
prescription, the nature and circumstances of the case reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in
should be considered. According to petitioners, the owner’s possession of the property.45
duplicate certificate of title was given to Conrado for In this case, the ten-year prescriptive period is squarely
safekeeping in 1945. Allegedly, Conrado employed fraud applicable because Conrado and his family, not petitioners,
and bad faith when he drafted the Adjudication and were in possession of the property. The subject property
Absolute Sale of a Parcel of was

_______________ _______________

35  Art. 1106. By prescription, one acquires ownership and other real 39  Records, Vol. II, pp. 667-668.
rights through the lapse of time in the manner and under the conditions 40  Id., at pp. 678-679.
laid down by law. 41   Tong v. Go Tiat Kun, G.R. No. 196023, April 21, 2014, 722 SCRA
In the same way, rights and conditions are lost by prescription. 623, 635.
36   Art. 1139. Actions prescribe by the mere lapse of time fixed by 42   Heirs of Narvasa, Sr. v. Victoriano, G.R. No. 182908, August 6,
law. 2014, 732 SCRA 171, 182.
37  Virtucio v. Alegarbes, G.R. No. 187451, August 29, 2012, 679 SCRA 43   Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr., 516 Phil. 743, 753; 481 SCRA 402, 413
412, 421. (2006).
38  D.B.T. Mar-Bay Construction, Incorporated v. Panes, 612 Phil. 93; 44  See Estate of Margarita D. Cabacungan v. Laigo, 655 Phil. 366, 389;
594 SCRA 578 (2009); Feliciano v. Zaldivar, 534 Phil. 280; 503 SCRA 182 655 SCRA 366, 393 (2011).
(2006); and Ragudo v. Fabella Estate Tenants Association, Inc., 503 Phil. 45  Brito, Sr. v. Dianala, 653 Phil. 200, 211; 638 SCRA 529, 538 (2010).
751; 466 SCRA 136 (2005).
236
235

236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 235
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
registered in the name of Conrado on June 17, 1965, and
this should be the starting point of the ten-year period.
Registered Land39 on January 9, 1949, and transferred Petitioners, thus, had until June 17, 1975 to enforce the
the title of the land to his name with the issuance of TCT implied trust and assert their claim over the land. As
No. 3528240 on June 17, 1965; and because of the purported properly held by the CA, petitioners belatedly instituted
fraud committed by Conrado against petitioners, an their judicial claim over the land on May 9, 1996. Indeed,
implied constructive trust was created by operation of law, with the lapse of the prescriptive period to file an action,
with Conrado as trustee and Aurora as cestui que trust. petitioners could no longer seek relief from the courts.
Constructive trusts are created by the construction of  
equity in order to satisfy the demands of justice and Fraud was not proven
prevent unjust enrichment.41 Article 1456 of the Civil Code  
provides that a person acquiring property through fraud Granting, for the sake of argument, that the present
becomes, by operation of law, a trustee of an implied trust case was not barred by laches and had not prescribed, it
for the benefit of the real owner of the property.42 It is now must still fail on its merits. The basis of the action for
well-settled that the prescriptive period to recover property damages of petitioners would be the fraud, bad faith and
obtained by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an implied misrepresentation allegedly committed by Conrado in
trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years transferring the title of the subject property to his name.
pursuant to Article 1144.43 The prescriptive period to
Petitioners, however, drastically failed to prove the fact of possession and interest to recover the subject property. The
fraud with clear and convincing evidence. trial court even noted that petitioners could not present a
Fraud must be proven by clear and convincing evidence single tax declaration receipt as an indicia of their
and not merely by a preponderance thereof.46 Clear and ownership. Based on the foregoing, petitioners are certainly
convincing proof is more than mere preponderance, but not not entitled to damages on the basis of their misplaced
to extent of such certainty as is required beyond reasonable claim of ownership over the subject property.
doubt as in criminal cases.47 The imputation of fraud in a WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The July 28,
civil case requires the presentation of clear and convincing 2011 Decision and the February 3, 2012 Resolution of the
evidence. Mere allegations will not suffice to sustain the Court of Appeals in C.A.-G.R. CV No. 122153 are
existence of fraud. The burden of evidence rests on the part AFFIRMED in toto.
of the plaintiff or the party alleging fraud.48 SO ORDERED.

_______________ _______________

46   ECE Realty and Development, Inc. v. Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, 49  CA Rollo, p. 62.
September 1, 2014, 734 SCRA 76, 83. 50  Records, Vol. II, pp. 665-666.
47  Manalo v. Roldan-Confesor, 215 Phil. 808, 819; 220 SCRA 606, 611
238
(1993).
48   Tankeh v. Development Bank of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171428,
November 11, 2013, 709 SCRA 19. 238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
237 Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora

Carpio (Chairperson), Bersamin,** Del Castillo and

VOL. 761, JULY 1, 2015 237
Leonen, JJ., concur.
Pangasinan vs. Disonglo-Almazora
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed in
Here, the Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of toto.
Registered Land, which was signed by Aurora and her
Notes.—An action for reconveyance based on an implied
husband, transferred the ownership of the subject property
trust prescribes in ten years, the reckoning point of which
from Aurora to Conrado. Petitioners, however, failed to
is the date of registration of the deed or the date of
assail the validity of such deed. As written by the RTC,
issuance of the certificate of title over the property. (Brito,
petitioners could have questioned the authenticity of the
Sr. vs. Dianala, 638 SCRA 529 [2010])
document and submitted the same to the National Bureau
The essence of laches or “stale demands” is the failure or
of Investigation for comparison of the signatures. This,
neglect for an unreasonable and unexplained length of time
they failed to do.49
to do that which, by exercising due diligence, could or
In fine, the Adjudication and Absolute Sale of a Parcel of
should have been done earlier, thus, giving rise to a
Registered Land, being a notarized document, enjoys the
presumption that the party entitled to assert it either has
presumption of regularity. Even assuming that Conrado
abandoned or declined to assert it. It is not concerned with
truly employed fraud, no proof was presented that
mere lapse of time; the fact of delay, standing alone, being
respondents, as heirs of Conrado, were in privy and had
insufficient to constitute laches. (Insurance of the
knowledge of the misrepresentations. In the absence of
Philippine Islands Corporation vs. Gregorio, 642 SCRA 685
evidence of fraud, the transfer to Conrado of the title of the
[2011])
subject property, and the subsequent transfer to
——o0o——
respondents by virtue of succession,50 must be upheld.
Even on the subject of ownership, petitioners failed to
substantiate their claim. Petitioners had nothing, other _______________
than their bare allegations, that they continuously owned
the subject property. For decades, petitioners lacked the
 * *  Designated acting member, in lieu of Associate Justice Arturo D.
Brion, per Special Order No. 2079 dated June 29, 2015.

© Copyright 2019 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.