NEY V.

QUIJANO

FACTS: Petitioners Ney are the registered owners of a residential lot where a three door
apartment was constructed, divided among them and the respondents. The respondents filed
with the RTC a suit for reconveyance, partition and damages against the petitioners, claiming that
they are the co-owners of the lot having paid part of its purchase price, and that their names
were inadvertently omitted as one of the buyers in the deed of sale.

Consequently, the TCT covering the lot was issued in the names of petitioners. To obtain a
separate TCT, the respondents requested from the petitioners the segregation of the portion of
the lot allotted to them, to which the petitioners refused. The respondents later discovered that
the entire property was mortgaged with Metrobank.

They thus registered their claim and filed this complaint. They reiterated that they are co-owners
of the property.

RTC dismissed, rejecting the claim of co-ownership. The CA reversed, considering the complaint
as one for an imprescriptible action for quieting of title.

ISSUE: W/N respondent’s action for reconveyance constitutes quieting of title? YES.

HELD: Respondent seek for the reconveyance of their share that was mistakenly included in the
petitioners’ TCT. An action for reconveyance is one seeking to transfer property, wrongfully
registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. Indeed, reconveyance is distinct from an
action for quieting of title, which is filed to remove a cloud prejudicial to a title to real property
or an interest therein which is apparently valid but is in fact not.

Despite this, there is nothing erroneous in the CA’s ruling treating respondents’ action for
reconveyance as one to quiet title. If a person claims to be the owner of a property and is in
actual possession thereof, the right to seek reconveyance, which, in effect, seeks to quiet title
does not prescribe. One who is in actual possession of the land claiming to be its owner may wait
until his possession is disturbed before taking action to protect his right.

DOCTRINE: If a person claims to be the owner of a property and is in actual possession thereof,
the right to seek reconveyance, which, in effect, seeks to quiet title does not prescribe.

OCAMPO V. OCAMPO

FACTS: Petitioners and respondent are brothers, both sons of the Basilio Ocampo and Juliana
Sunglao.

Respondent alleged that him and petitioner are co-owners of the 150 sq. m. lot left behind by
their parents. The subject property was originally registered in their parents’ names.
Respondent claims that petitioner falsified his signature on a notarized Extra-Judicial Settlement
with Waiver and effecting the transfer of the property in his of petitioner. Respondent requested
for partition of the property, but petitioner refused to do so and secretly mortgaged the property
forP200,000.00.

Petitioner, on the other hand, claims that their father executed the ESW and secured
respondent’s signature. By virtue of the ESW, petitioner was able to have TCT No. 36869
cancelled and have TCT No. 102822 issued in favor of himself and his wife.

He claims that TCT No. 102822 became indefeasible one year after its issuance and that the action
to annul it had prescribed since it was 21 years and 7 months from the issuance of the title.

ISSUE: Whether or not the action for annulment of title and partition has already prescribed?
NO.

RULING: Under the Torrens System, the decree of registration and the certificate of title issued
become incontrovertible upon the expiration of 1 year from the date of entry of the decree of
registration, without prejudice to an action for damages against the applicant or any person
responsible for the fraud. However, actions for reconveyance based on implied trusts may be
allowed beyond the one-year period.

Given the falsity of the ESW, it becomes apparent that petitioner obtained the registration
through fraud. This wrongful registration gives occasion to the creation of an implied or
constructive trust under Article 1456 of the New Civil Code. An action for reconveyance based on
an implied trust generally prescribes in ten years. However, if the plaintiff remains in possession
of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title of possession does not run against him.
In such case, his action is deemed in the nature of a quieting of title, an action that is
imprescriptible.

In this case, the complaint for partition and annulment of the title was only more than twenty
(20) years since the assailed title was issued. However, both petitioner and respondent were
residing at the subject property at the time the complaint was filed. Considering that respondent
was in actual possession of the disputed land at the time of the filing of the complaint, the present
case may be treated as an action for quieting of title.

Since it was already established that respondent’s signature on the ESW, which was the basis of
petitioner’s title over the property, was forged, then it is only necessary for the cloud on
respondent’s title to be removed. Thus, the trial court’s order to cancel TCT No. 102822 and
uphold the parties’ co-ownership was proper.

DOCTRINE: An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust generally prescribes in ten
years. However, if the plaintiff remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to
recover title of possession does not run against him. In such case, his action is deemed in the
nature of a quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.