Hans Case Digest Repo
Hans Case Digest Repo — Study Smart, Pass the Bar
Home/Agency, Trust, and Partnership Law/Weeks 7 & 8 - Trusts/Gatmaytan and Valdellon v. Misibis Land, Inc.

Gatmaytan and Valdellon v. Misibis Land, Inc.

2. Implied Trusts (Art. 1447 - 1457) — b. Constructive Trusts — Prescriptive period to file reconveyance
Subject Home
16px
←Previous: Spouses Aboitiz v. Spouses Po (citing Hortizuela v. Tagufa)Previous case
Primary source ↗Next: Heirs of Tulauan v. MateoNext case→

On this page

  • Gist
  • Facts
  • Issue
  • Ruling
  • Ratio
  • Doctrine
  • Provisions
Primary source ↗

Title

Gatmaytan and Valdellon v. Misibis Land, Inc.

Case Decision Date

G.R. No. 222166 June 10, 2020

Buyers who never managed to transfer title to their Albay land discovered decades later that it had been consolidated into a resort developer's holdings. The Court held their complaint should not have been dismissed outright — one of its alternative causes of action stated a claim, and registration without the owner's duplicate is not constructive notice.

Core Doctrine

An action to quiet title is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession, but one out of possession must sue within the ordinary periods — ten years for reconveyance based on implied trust, reckoned from registration, which ordinarily operates as constructive notice. A complaint pleading two or more alternative causes of action cannot be dismissed where one of them states a sufficient cause of action.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 222166)

Case DigestWeeks 7 & 8 - Trusts

Gatmaytan and Valdellon v. Misibis Land, Inc.

G.R. No. 222166 · June 10, 2020 · Supreme Court

2. Implied Trusts (Art. 1447 - 1457) — b. Constructive Trusts — Prescriptive period to file reconveyance

Petitioner: Mercedes S. Gatmaytan and Erlinda V. ValdellonRespondent: Misibis Land, Inc.
Gist

Buyers who never managed to transfer title to their Albay land discovered decades later that it had been consolidated into a resort developer's holdings. The Court held their complaint should not have been dismissed outright — one of its alternative causes of action stated a claim, and registration without the owner's duplicate is not constructive notice.

Core Doctrine

An action to quiet title is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession, but one out of possession must sue within the ordinary periods — ten years for reconveyance based on implied trust, reckoned from registration, which ordinarily operates as constructive notice. A complaint pleading two or more alternative causes of action cannot be dismissed where one of them states a sufficient cause of action.

Facts

  • On December 9, 1991, petitioners Mercedes S. Gatmaytan and Erlinda V. Valdellon purchased from the Spouses Garcia a parcel of land at Misibis, Cagraray Island, Albay, containing 6.4846 hectares, for ₱70,000.
  • The deed was duly annotated on the certificate of title. (Annotation is notice to the whole world — so anyone later dealing with the land, the developer included, took it with the buyers' claim already on the face of the title.)
  • The petitioners were, however, unable to transfer the Torrens title into their names for want of the necessary clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform.
  • In 2010, when they resumed processing the transfer, they discovered that the lot had been consolidated into the landholdings of respondent Misibis Land, Inc. (the alleged constructive trustee), which had developed the area. (Nineteen years had passed since the 1991 sale — the delay on which the prescription defense rests.)
  • They filed a complaint pleading, in the alternative, causes of action for quieting of title, reconveyance, annulment of title, and damages.
  • Regional Trial Court — dismissed on two grounds. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint on two grounds: that the cause of action was barred by prescription, and that the petitioners had failed to pay the proper docket fees.
  • Court of Appeals — dismissal sustained. The Court of Appeals sustained the dismissal.

Issue

Whether the complaint was properly dismissed on the grounds of prescription and non-payment of the correct docket fees.

Ruling

No. The Supreme Court held the outright dismissal improper. A complaint containing two or more alternative causes of action cannot be dismissed where one of them clearly states a sufficient cause of action, and the prescription ruling could not be sustained on the face of the pleadings.

Ratio

1. Alternative Causes of Action Must Be Assessed Separately
  • The complaint did not rest on a single theory.
  • It pleaded, in the alternative, quieting of title, reconveyance, and annulment.
  • Each carries its own requisites and its own prescriptive rule.
  • A court confronted with such a pleading must examine each cause of action.
  • If any one of them states a claim on which relief can be granted, dismissal of the entire complaint is error.
2. Prescription of Reconveyance Based on Implied Trust
  • Where registration has been obtained in derogation of another's right, Article 1456§ creates an implied trust, and the action for reconveyance prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the certificate of title — registration being, as a rule, constructive notice to the world.
3. But Registration Without the Owner's Duplicate Is Not Constructive Notice
  • The Court qualified that rule in an important respect.
  • The doctrine of constructive notice presupposes a regular registration.
  • Where a title is registered without presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate — as the petitioners alleged — the registration cannot be given the effect of notifying the true owner, who has done nothing to set the transaction in motion and has no reason to suspect it.
  • The prescriptive period cannot be reckoned mechanically from such a registration.
4. Quieting of Title: Possession Is the Pivot
  • For the quieting-of-title cause of action§, the governing distinction is possession.
  • Where the plaintiff is in possession of the property, his action to quiet title is imprescriptible — his right to seek judicial relief is a continuing one, renewed so long as the cloud subsists.
  • Where he is out of possession, the action is subject to the ordinary prescriptive periods, and here the Court applied the thirty-year period governing real actions over immovables in the circumstances presented.
5. Docket Fees
  • Non-payment of the correct docket fees does not automatically warrant dismissal where there is no intent to defraud the government.
  • The deficiency may be treated as a lien on the judgment, and the plaintiff allowed to complete payment within a reasonable period.

Doctrine

  • Alternative causes of action. A complaint stating several alternative theories survives if at least one states a sufficient cause of action; the court must evaluate each separately.
  • Quieting of title and possession. The action is imprescriptible for a plaintiff in possession; a plaintiff out of possession is bound by the ordinary prescriptive periods.
  • Reconveyance based on implied trust prescribes in ten years from registration — but registration effected without presentation of the owner's duplicate certificate is not constructive notice, and the period is not reckoned from it.
  • Docket fees. Deficiency, absent bad faith, is a lien on the judgment rather than a ground for outright dismissal.

Cited Laws & Provisions

Every statute, rule, and issuance the decision turns on — the text as written, and the work it does in this case.

Civil Code

Article 1456, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title V (Trusts (N)), Chapter 3 (Implied Trusts)

If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

Why it is cited here

The trust that fixes the limitation period: property acquired "through mistake or fraud" makes the acquirer a trustee for the true owner, and reconveyance on that footing prescribes in ten years reckoned from registration, which ordinarily operates as constructive notice.

The reasoning behind that reckoning is worth stating, because it explains the exception the companion cases recognise. Registration is treated as telling the world, so the owner is taken to have known from that date whether or not he did. Where the facts show he could not have known — concealed fraud — the presumption yields and the period runs from actual discovery.

Civil Code

Article 1447, Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title V (Trusts (N)), Chapter 3 (Implied Trusts)

The enumeration of the following cases of implied trust does not exclude others established by the general law of trust, but the limitation laid down in article 1442 shall be applicable.

Why it is cited here

The article that keeps the categories open, and the reason a single set of facts can support more than one theory.

Because the enumeration "does not exclude others established by the general law of trust," a plaintiff may plead alternative causes — quieting of title, reconveyance on an implied trust, declaration of nullity — arising from the same events.

That flexibility is exactly what makes the prescription analysis in this case delicate, and the distinction it draws is the one to carry away. An action to quiet title is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession, because his possession is a continuing assertion of his right and he may wait for the cloud to be pressed against him. A plaintiff out of possession has no such standing claim and must sue within the ordinary periods — ten years for reconveyance on an implied trust, from registration.

So the first question in a reconveyance problem is often not what the plaintiff pleaded but who holds the land. A complaint that pleads alternative theories must be tested against the period appropriate to each, and possession is what decides which of them is still open.

Study digest — refer to the full text of the decision for accuracy. https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2020/jun2020/gr_222166_2020.html

Cited laws & provisions

Article 1456, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title V (Trusts (N)), Chapter 3 (Implied Trusts)

If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law, considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

Why it is cited here

The trust that fixes the limitation period: property acquired "through mistake or fraud" makes the acquirer a trustee for the true owner, and reconveyance on that footing prescribes in ten years reckoned from registration, which ordinarily operates as constructive notice.

The reasoning behind that reckoning is worth stating, because it explains the exception the companion cases recognise. Registration is treated as telling the world, so the owner is taken to have known from that date whether or not he did. Where the facts show he could not have known — concealed fraud — the presumption yields and the period runs from actual discovery.

Full entry below ↓

Article 1447, Civil Code

Civil Code

Civil Code of the Philippines (R.A. No. 386), Book IV (Obligations and Contracts), Title V (Trusts (N)), Chapter 3 (Implied Trusts)

The enumeration of the following cases of implied trust does not exclude others established by the general law of trust, but the limitation laid down in article 1442 shall be applicable.

Why it is cited here

The article that keeps the categories open, and the reason a single set of facts can support more than one theory.

Because the enumeration "does not exclude others established by the general law of trust," a plaintiff may plead alternative causes — quieting of title, reconveyance on an implied trust, declaration of nullity — arising from the same events.

That flexibility is exactly what makes the prescription analysis in this case delicate, and the distinction it draws is the one to carry away. An action to quiet title is imprescriptible where the plaintiff is in possession, because his possession is a continuing assertion of his right and he may wait for the cloud to be pressed against him. A plaintiff out of possession has no such standing claim and must sue within the ordinary periods — ten years for reconveyance on an implied trust, from registration.

So the first question in a reconveyance problem is often not what the plaintiff pleaded but who holds the land. A complaint that pleads alternative theories must be tested against the period appropriate to each, and possession is what decides which of them is still open.

Full entry below ↓