Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1985 > May 1985 Decisions > G.R. No. L-59879 May 13, 1985 - PATRICIO SINAON v. ANDRES SOROÑGON:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

SECOND DIVISION

[G.R. No. L-59879. May 13, 1985.]

PATRICIO SINAON and MARIA, FRANCISCA and JOSE, all surnamed SINAON, Petitioners, v. ANDRES SOROÑGON, ANASTACIA PARREÑO, SOLEDAD PARREÑO, ANA PARREÑO, MARCELINA, CLARITA, RUFINO and MANUEL, all surnamed ARELLANO, SIMPLICIO SOMBLINGO and BRIGIDA SOMBLINGO and COURT OF APPEALS, Respondents.

Neil D. Hechanova, for Petitioners.

Benjamin P. Sorosogon for Respondents.


D E C I S I O N


AQUINO, J.:


The issue in this case is whether an action for reconveyance of a registered five-hectare land, based on implied trust, would lie after the supposed trustees had held the land for more than forty years.

According to the documentary evidence consisting of public documents and tax records, Judge (later Justice) Carlos A. Imperial in a decree dated March 4, 1916 adjudicated to Canuta Soblingo (Somblingo), a widow, Lot No. 4781 of the Sta. Barbara, Iloilo cadastre with an area of 5.5 hectares. OCT No. 6178-A was issued in 1917 to Canuta (Exh. 6 and 7 or B).

In 1923 Canuta sold the lot to the spouses Patricio Sinaon and Julia Sualibio for P2,000 (Exh. 8). TCT No. 2542 was issued to the Sinaon spouses (Exh. 9 or C). It is still existing and uncancelled up to this time. Julia was the granddaughter of Canuta.chanrobles law library

The lot was declared for tax purposes in Sinaon’s name (Exh. 3). The Sinaon spouses and their three children paid the realty taxes due thereon (Exh. 1 to 5-C). They have possessed the land as owners from 1923 up to this time or for more than half a century.

Canuta was one of the five children of Domingo Somblingo, the alleged original owner of the lot when it was not yet registered. His other four children were Felipe, Juan, Esteban and Santiago. The theory of respondents Soroñgon, Et Al., which they adopted in their 1968 second amended complaint (they filed the action in 1964) is that Canuta and the Sinaons were trustees of the lot and that the heirs of Domingo’s four children are entitled to a 4/5 share thereof.

That theory was sustained by the trial court and the Appellate Court. The trial court ordered the Sinaons to convey 4/5 of Lot No. 4781 to respondents Soroñgon, Et. Al. It decreed partition of the lot in five equal parts. The Sinaons appealed to this Court. The respondents did not file any brief.

We hold that after the Sinaons had appeared to be the registered owners of the lot for more than forty years and had possessed it during that period, their title had become indefeasible and their possession could not be disturbed. Any pretension as to the existence of an implied trust should not be countenanced.

The trustors, who created the alleged trust, died a long time ago. An attempt to prove the trust was made by unreliable oral evidence. The title and possession of the Sinaons cannot be defeated by oral evidence which can be easily fabricated and contradicted. The contradictory oral evidence leaves the court sometimes bothered and bewildered.

There was no express trust in this case. Express trusts concerning real property cannot be proven by parol evidence (Art. 1443, Civil Code). An implied trust "cannot be established, contrary to the recitals of a Torrens title, upon vague and inconclusive proof" (Suarez v. Tirambulo, 59 Phil. 303; Salao v. Salao, L-26699, March 16, 1976, 70 SCRA 65, 83).

Even assuming that there was an implied trust, plaintiffs’ action was clearly barred by prescription (Salao v. Salao, supra, p. 84).

Prescription is rightly regarded as a statute of repose whose object is to suppress fraudulent and stale claims from springing up at great distances of time and surprising the parties or their representatives when the facts have become obscure from the lapse of time or the defective memory or death or removal of witnesses (53 C.J.S. 903). See Teves Vda. de Bacong v. Teves and CA, G.R. No. 50143, October 24, 1983, 125 SCRA 137; Ramos v. Ramos, L-19872, December 3, 1974, 61 SCRA 284; Gallanosa v. Arcangel, L-29300, June 21, 1978, 83 SCRA 676 and Sinco v. Longa, 51 Phil. 507.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

It was not necessary for the Sinaons to plead prescription as a defense because there is no dispute as to the dates. There was no factual issue as to prescription (Chua Lamko v. Dioso, 97 Phil. 821, 824; Ferrer v. Ericta, L-41767, August 23, 1978, 84 SCRA 705).

At any rate, the Sinaons invoked in the lower court the ruling laid down in Gerona v. De Guzman, 120 Phil. 149, 153 that an action for reconveyance of realty, based upon a constructive or implied trust resulting from fraud, may be barred by prescription. The prescriptive period is reckoned from the issuance of the title which operates as a constructive notice (Diaz v. Gorricho and Aguado, 103 Phil. 261, 266-267; J.M. Tuason & Co., Inc. v. Magdangal, 114 Phil. 42, 46-47; Lopez v. Gonzaga, 119 Phil. 424, 437).

The supposed trust in this case, which is neither an express nor a resulting trust, is a constructive trust arising by operation of law (Art. 1456, Civil Code). It is not a trust in the technical sense (Gayondato v. Treasurer of the P.I., 49 Phil 244).*

WHEREFORE, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the complaint is dismissed. The receivership is terminated. The receiver is directed to wind up his accounts. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Makasiar (Chairman), Abad Santos, Escolin and Cuevas, JJ., concur.

Justice Concepcion, Jr. did not take part.

Endnotes:



* It was only in 1964 that plaintiffs, now respondents Soroñgon, Et Al., woke up. They had to amend their complaint twice because they were not sure of the facts. They were not able to state with certainty Domingo’s surviving descendants Teodulfo Somblingo, their first witness, and his four brothers, alleged grandchildren of Santiago, Domingo’s son, were not joined as plaintiffs (29 tsn, July 29, 1969).

Respondents Soroñgon, Et. Al. alleged in paragraph 5 of their complaint that Canuta Somblingo was made a trustee because she "was educated." This is false because she was illiterate as shown in the deed of sale, Exhibit 8. They at first alleged that Canuta died without issue. They later discovered that Canuta was survived by the Sinaon petitioners who were her great-grandchildren.

According to Francisca Sinaon, a college graduate, Teodulfo Somblingo, who testified that he was a co-owner of the land, was a hired laborer, one of 15 laborers, who used Patricio Sinaon’s carabao in plowing the land (111, 130-2, 135 tsn Feb. 15, 1971). Even after the case was filed, Teodulfo continued to work as a thresher (136). Simplicio Somblingo, the husband of plaintiffs’ witness, Cornelia Somblingo, was also a hired laborer (112).

The trial court observed that the Sinaons did not present any evidence to dispute the oral testimony that the lot came from Domingo Somblingo. What the court overlooked is that the plaintiffs did not present trustworthy and convincing evidence that Domingo originally owned the lot at all.

Canuta Somblingo-Umadhay, the registered owner, had four children named Presentacion, Rufina, Elena and Fructuoso. As already noted, the land was purchased by Canuta’s granddaughter, Julia, and her husband, Patricio Sinaon. The trial court denied Sinaon’s motion for new trial which was designed to give him a chance to prove that he and the Umadhays had sufficient means to acquire the disputed lot (108-109, Record on Appeal).




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






May-1985 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-56893 May 3, 1985 - PEDRO SISON, SR. v. MINISTRY OF NATIONAL DEFENSE

  • G.R. No. L-59787 May 3, 1985 - CRISTINA V. JASMINEZ v. FABIAN C. VER

  • G.R. No. L-58912 May 7, 1985 - ROBERTO R. DE LUZURIAGA, SR. v. MIDPANTAO L. ADIL

  • G.R. No. L-66547 May 7, 1985 - FRANCISCO MOGUEIS, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-67540 May 7, 1985 - FLORENDA SALCEDO v. ESTHER NOBLES BANS

  • G.R. No. L-69800 May 7, 1985 - ALFREDO MONTELIBANO v. BACOLOD-MURCIA MILLING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. L-32737 May 8, 1985 - GREGORIO A. CONCON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-43086 May 8, 1985 - FELIPE Z. CAÑETE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-45234 May 8, 1985 - R and B SURETY & INSURANCE CO., INC. v. VICTORINO A. SAVELLANO

  • G.R. No. L-60509 May 8, 1985 - LEOPOLDO TOLOSA v. EMPLOYEE’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-62354 May 9, 1985 - ROSALINDA GODIZANO v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • A.C. No. 2131 May 10, 1985 - ADRIANO E. DACANAY v. BAKER & MCKENZIE

  • G.R. No. L-20395 May 13, 1985 - ELTON W. CHASE v. VICTOR BUENCAMINO, SR.

  • G.R. No. L-45382 May 13, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NICOLAS SERRANO

  • G.R. No. L-59879 May 13, 1985 - PATRICIO SINAON v. ANDRES SOROÑGON

  • G.R. No. L-68126 May 13, 1985 - MACTAN RURAL BANK, INC. v. VICENTE LEOGARDO, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-69261 May 13, 1985 - RAJAH LAHUY MINING COMPANY v. JAMES B. PAJARES

  • G.R. No. L-50345 May 14, 1985 - HEIRS OF AGUSTIN FIESTA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-52832 May 14, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY SAMIANO

  • G.R. No. L-60504 May 14, 1985 - MELITON C. GERONIMO v. FIDEL V. RAMOS

  • G.R. No. L-66371 May 15, 1985 - ARMANDO ANG v. JOSE P. CASTRO

  • A.M. No. 2864-P May 16, 1985 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. AMANDO S. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. L-52292 May 16, 1985 - FEDERATION OF FREE WORKERS v. EDUARDO P. CAGUIOA

  • G.R. No. L-57348 May 16, 1985 - FRANCISCO DEPRA v. AGUSTIN DUMLAO

  • G.R. No. L-35645 May 22, 1985 - UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. V.M. RUIZ

  • G.R. No. L-40118 May 22, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO Z. PANUELOS

  • G.R. No. L-46126 May 22, 1985 - ESTEBAN S. CRUZ v. DIRECTOR, NATIONAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

  • G.R. No. L-65555 May 22, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANTINOMENES DUERO

  • A.C. No. 2481 May 24, 1985 - LEONCIO DELA CRUZ v. RICARDO A. FABROS, JR.

  • G.R. No. L-34856 May 24, 1985 - IRENEO MIRALLES v. PEDRO ORO

  • G.R. No. L-62465 May 24, 1985 - ERNESTO S. NIETO v. ROMEO D. MAGAT

  • G.R. No. L-65848 May 24, 1985 - HERNANDO C. LAYNO, SR. v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • G.R. No. L-68212 May 24, 1985 - SEA-LAND SERVICE, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-27718 May 27, 1985 - INDUSTRIAL TEXTILES MANUFACTURING COMPANY v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-39388 May 27, 1985 - RAYMUNDO ERFE v. WILLELMO C. FORTUN

  • G.R. No. L-41412 May 27, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANCHO NEPOMUCENO

  • G.R. No. L-42419 May 27, 1985 - PACIENCIA VDA. DE PONGAN v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-44258 May 27, 1985 - CENEN G. DIZON v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-57051 May 27, 1985 - MERLY M. PAGALUNAN v. STATION COMMANDER ANGELES CITY

  • G.R. No. L-61549 May 27, 1985 - FRANCISCO DE ASIS & CO., INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. L-63535 May 27, 1985 - PHIL. INTERNATIONAL SHIPPING CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 70185 May 27, 1985 - SANDIGAN NG MANGGAGAWA SA SHOEMART v. CRESENCIO B. TRAJANO

  • G.R. No. L-23524 May 31, 1985 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GABRIEL V. VALERO

  • G.R. No. L-45637 May 31, 1985 - ROBERTO JUNTILLA v. CLEMENTE FONTANAR

  • G.R. No. L-56022 May 31, 1985 - GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • G.R. No. L-56744 May 31, 1985 - ROMUALDO AVELLANEDA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. L-57627 & 58966 May 31, 1985 - ROLANDO TINIO v. JOSE P. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. L-63729 May 31, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO DEUS

  • G.R. No. L-64204 May 31, 1985 - DEL ROSARIO & SONS LOGGING ENTERPRISES, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-65689 May 31, 1986

    SANDOVAL SHIPYARDS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. L-68032 May 31, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENCIO V. HINSOY

  • G.R. No. L-69098 May 31, 1985 - GEORGIA G. TUMANG v. ODILON I. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. L-69437 May 31, 1985 - SIEGFREDO D. OBIAS v. MELECIO B. BORJA

  • G.R. No. L-69623 May 31, 1985 - MASAGANA TELAMART, INC. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. L-69907 May 31, 1985 - PRUDENTIAL BANK v. JOSE P. CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 70744 May 31, 1985 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIPE RAMIREZ