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
hectare portion sa dakong panulukan ng Amihan-Silanganan. The protest
was recorded in the Bureau and in the same document, Olviga admitted that
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.