Heirs of Jose Olviga vs. CA

FACTS:

In 1950, Pureza and his father cleared and cultivated the land in question. The Bureau of Lands surveyed the land in the name of Pureza. Godofredo Olviga, the son of Jose Olviga, protested the survey but without respect to ½ hectare portion sa dakong panulukan ng Amihan-Silanganan. The protest was recorded in the Bureau and in the same document, Olviga admitted that ½ of the land belonged to Pureza and the other half to him.

Pureza filed a homestead application and transferred his rights to Cornelia Glor. The Director of Lands did not act upon both actions. 7 years later, Olviga obtained a registered title in a cadastral proceeding over the parcel of land, in fraud of the rights of Pureza and his transferee.

Glor contended that they received no notice of the proceeding, which fact was also supported by Olviga. However, in the cadastral proceeding, Jose Olviga claimed both lots, disregarding the fact that Glor and her family were in possession of the other half of the land.

Angelita Glor and her children filed an action against the heirs of Olviga for reconveyance of a parcel of land in a subdivision. The RTC ruled in favor of Glor and her children and ordered the heirs of Olviga to reconvey the land. The heirs of Olviga contended that the action has already prescribed.

ISSUE:

Has the action for reconveyance prescribed?

HELD:

The court affirmed the decision of the lower courts. The action for reconveyance, being based on implied or constructive trust, prescribes in 10 years counted from the time the defendants in this case learned of the title of Olviga. It was filed in less than a year after Glor learned about the title of Olviga, hence, the action has not yet prescribed.