FIRSTDIVISION

[G.R.No.115925.August15,2003]

SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and CONSOLACION SIOSON, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and REMEDIOS S. EUGENIO
GINO,respondents.
DECISION
CARPIO,J.:

TheCase
ThisisapetitionforreviewoftheDecision[1]dated31January1994oftheCourtofAppealsorderingtheRegisterofDeedsofMetroManila,DistrictIII,toplace
TCT No. (232252) 1321 in the name of respondent Remedios S. EugenioGino.The Decision ordered the Register of Deeds to cancel the names of petitioners
RicardoPascualandConsolacionSioson(petitioners)inTCTNo.(232252)1321.TheDecisionalsodirectedpetitionerstopayrespondentmoralandexemplary
damagesandattorneysfees.
TheFacts
PetitionerConsolacionSioson(CONSOLACION)andrespondentRemediosS.EugenioGino(REMEDIOS)arethenieceandgranddaughter,respectively,of
the late Canuto Sioson (CANUTO). CANUTO and 11 other individuals, including his sister Catalina Sioson (CATALINA) and his brother Victoriano Sioson
(VICTORIANO),werecoownersofaparceloflandinTanza,Navotas,MetroManila.Theproperty,knownasLot2ofPlanPsu13245,hadanareaof9,347square
metersandwascoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.4207issuedbytheRegisterofDeedsofRizal.CATALINA,CANUTO,andVICTORIANOeachownedan
aliquot10/70shareor1,335squaremetersofLot2.[2]
On20November1951,CANUTOhadLot2surveyedandsubdividedintoeightlots(LotNos.2Ato2H)throughSubdivisionPlanPsd34713whichtheDirector
of Lands approved on 30 May 1952. Lot No. 2A, with an area of 670 square meters, and Lot No. 2E, with an area of 2,000 square meters, were placed under
CANUTOsname.Threeotherindividualstooktheremaininglots.[3]
On26September1956,CANUTOandCONSOLACIONexecutedaKasulatanngBilihangTuluyan[4](KASULATAN).UndertheKASULATAN,CANUTOsold

his10/70shareinLot2infavorofCONSOLACIONforP2,250.00.TheKASULATAN,notarizedbyNotaryPublicJoseT.delosSantosofNavotas,provides:
Naako,CANUTOSIOSON,mamamayangPilipino,maykatampatanggulang,kasalkayRaymundaSanDiego,atnaninirahansaTanza,Navotas,Rizal,sabisaatpamamagitanng
kasulatangitoaynagpapatunayatnagpapatibay:
1.Naakoanglubosattunaynamayaring10/70bahaginghindihati(10/70porcionproindiviso)ngisanglagaynalupa(LoteNo.2,PlanoPsu13245),nanasa
sanayonngTanza,MunicipiongNavotas,ProvinciangRizal,atangdescripcionopagkakakilanlanngnasabingloteaynakasaadsaCertificadoOriginal,de
TituloNo.4207ngOficinangRegistradordeTitulosngRizal,gayangsumusunod:
xxxx
2.NadahilatalangalangsahalagangDalawangLiboDalawangDaanatLimampungPiso(P2,250.00),salapingPilipino,nasaakinayibinayadni
CONSOLACIONSIOSON,kasalkayRicardoS.Pascual,maysapatnagulang,mamamayangPilipino,atnaninirahansaDampalit,Malabon,Rizalatang
pagkakatanggapngnasabinghalagaayakinginaaminatpinatutunayan,ayakingipinagbili,inilipatatisinalin,sapamamagitanngbilihangtuluyanatwalang
pasubaliafavor[sic]sanasabingsiCONSOLACIONSIOSON,sakanyangtagapagmanaatmapaglilipatananglahatngakingtitulo,karapatanatkapartina
binubuong10/70bahaginghindihati(10/70porcionproindiviso)nglotengdescritoortinutukoysaitaasnito.(Emphasissupplied)
CONSOLACION immediately took possession of Lot Nos. 2A and 2E. She later declared the land for taxation purposes and paid the corresponding real estate
taxes.[5]
On 23 October 1968, the surviving children of CANUTO, namely, Felicidad and Beatriz, executed a joint affidavit[6] (JOINT AFFIDAVIT) affirming the
KASULATANinfavorofCONSOLACION.TheyalsoattestedthatthelotstheirfatherhadsoldtoCONSOLACIONwereLotNos.2Aand2EofSubdivisionPlanPsd
34713.TheJOINTAFFIDAVITreads:
KAMINGsinaFELICIDADSIOSONatBEATRIZSIOSON,pawangmgaPilipino,kapuwamaysapatnagulangatnaninirahan,angunasaTanza,Navotasatangikalawasa
Concepcion,Malabon,lalawiganngRizal,sailalimngisangganapnapanunumpaalinsunodsabatas,aymalayangnagsasalaysayngmgasumusunod:
NakamiangmgabuhaynaanaknanaiwanniCANUTOSIOSONnanagmamayaring10/70bahaginghindihati(10/70porcionproindiviso)ngisanglagaynalupa(LoteNo.2,
planoPsu13245),nanasaNayonngTanza,Navotas,Rizal,atangmgapalatandaannitoaynasasaadsaCertificadoOriginaldeTituloNo.4207ngTanggapanngRegistradorde
TitulosngRizal
Nasalubosnamingkaalaman,ayipinagbilingamingAmanasiCanutoSiosonangkaniyangbuongbahagina10/70sanasabingLoteNo.2,kayCONSOLACIONSIOSON,may
bahayniRicardoS.Pascual,natagaDampalit,Malabon,Rizal,sahalagangP2,250.00,salapingpilipino,noongika16[sic]ngSeptiembre,1956,sapamamagitanngisang
KASULATANNGBILIHANGTULUYANnapinagtibaysaharapngNotarioPublicoJoseT.delosSantosnangpechangnabanggit,saNavotas,Rizal,(Doc.No.194,PageNo.84
BookNo.IVSeriesof1956)
NaangnasabinglupanaipinagbilingamingAmakayConsolacionSiosonniPascual,aynakikilalangayongmgaLoteNo.2AatLote2EngPlanodeSubdivisionPsd34713na
pinagtibayngAssistantDirectorofLandsnoongMayo30,1952

NaamingngayongpinatitibayanangpagkapagbilingbahagingamingAmakayConsolacionSiosonniPascualngngayoynakikilalangLoteNo.2AatLoteNo.2EngPlanode
SubdivisionPsd34713.(Emphasissupplied)
On 28 October 1968, CONSOLACION registered the KASULATAN and the JOINT AFFIDAVIT with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal (Register of
Deeds).Basedonthesedocuments,theRegisterofDeedsissuedtoCONSOLACIONTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321coveringLotNos.2Aand2E
ofSubdivisionPlanPsd34713withatotalareaof2,670squaremeters.
On4February1988,REMEDIOSfiledacomplaintagainstCONSOLACIONandherspouseRicardoPascualintheRegionalTrialCourtofMalabon,Branch165,
forAnnulmentorCancellationofTransferCertificate[ofTitle]andDamages.REMEDIOSclaimedthatsheistheownerofLotNos.2Aand2EbecauseCATALINA
devisedtheselotstoherinCATALINAslastwillandtestament[7](LASTWILL)dated29May1964.REMEDIOSaddedthatCONSOLACIONobtainedtitletothese
lotsthroughfraudulentmeanssincetheareacoveredbyTCT(232252)1321istwicethesizeofCANUTOsshareinLot2.REMEDIOSprayedforthecancellationof
CONSOLACIONstitle,theissuanceofanothertitleinhername,andthepaymenttoherofdamages.
Petitionerssoughttodismissthecomplaintonthegroundofprescription.Petitionersclaimedthatthebasisoftheactionisfraud,andREMEDIOSshouldhave
filedtheactionwithinfouryearsfromtheregistrationofCONSOLACIONstitleon28October1968andnotsome19yearslateron4February1988.REMEDIOS
opposedthemotion,claimingthatshebecameawareofCONSOLACIONsadversetitleonlyinFebruary1987.CONSOLACIONmaintainedthatshehadtimelyfiled
hercomplaintwithinthefouryearprescriptiveon4February1988.
In its order of 28 April 1988, the trial court denied petitioners motion to dismiss. The trial court held that the reckoning of the prescriptive period for filing
REMEDIOS complaint is evidentiary in nature and must await the presentation of the parties evidence during the trial. During the pretrial stage, REMEDIOS
clarifiedthatshewasclaimingonlyCATALINAs10/70shareinLot2,or1,335squaremeters,whichconstituteoftheareaofLotNos.2Aand2E.[8]Thetrialof
thecasethenensued.
TheRulingoftheTrialCourt
On26November1990,thetrialcourtrenderedjudgmentdismissingthecaseandorderingREMEDIOStopaypetitionersP10,000asattorneysfeesandthecost
of suit. The trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is based on fraud, covered by the fouryear prescriptive period. The trial court also held that
REMEDIOSknewofpetitionersadversetitleon19November1982whenREMEDIOStestifiedagainstpetitionersinanejectmentsuitpetitionershadfiledagainst
theirtenantsinLotNos.2Aand2E.Thus,thecomplaintofREMEDIOShadalreadyprescribedwhenshefilediton4February1988.
ThetrialcourtfurtherruledthatREMEDIOShasnorightofactionagainstpetitionersbecauseCATALINAsLASTWILLfromwhichREMEDIOSclaimstoderive
hertitlehasnotbeenadmittedtoprobate.UnderArticle838oftheCivilCode,nowillpassesrealorpersonalpropertyunlessitisallowedinprobateinaccordance
withtheRulesofCourt.Thedispositiveportionofthetrialcourtsdecisionprovides:
WHEREFORE,judgmentisherebyrenderedinfavorofthedefendantsandagainstplaintiff,ordering:
1.Thedismissalofthiscase

2.TheplaintifftopaythedefendantsthesumofTenThousand(P10,000.00)Pesosasandforattorneysfeesand
3.Theplaintifftopaythecostsofsuit.[9]
REMEDIOSappealedtotheCourtofAppeals.
TheRulingoftheCourtofAppeals
On31January1994,theCourtofAppealsrenderedjudgmentreversingthedecisionofthetrialcourt.TheappellatecourtheldthatwhatREMEDIOSfiledwasa
suittoenforceanimpliedtrustallegedlycreatedinherfavorwhenCONSOLACIONfraudulentlyregisteredhertitleoverLotNos.2Aand2E.Consequently,the
prescriptiveperiodforfilingthecomplaintistenyears,notfour.TheCourtofAppealscountedthistenyearperiodfrom19November1982.Thus,whenREMEDIOS
filedhercomplainton4February1988,thetenyearprescriptiveperiodhadnotyetexpired.
TheappellatecourtheldthatCATALINAsunprobatedLASTWILLdoesnotprecludeREMEDIOSfromseekingreconveyanceofLotNos.2Aand2Easthe
LASTWILLmaysubsequentlybeadmittedtoprobate.Thedispositiveportionoftheappellatecourtsrulingprovides:
WHEREFORE,thedecisionappealedfromisREVERSEDandSETASIDE.TheRegistryofDeedsofRizalorMetroManila,DistrictIII,isorderedtoplaceTransferCertificate
ofTitleNo.(232252)1321underthenameofRemediosS.EugenioGinoasexecutorofthewillofCatalinaSiosonandcancelthenamesoftheSpousesRicardoPascualand
ConsolacionSiosoninscribedoversaidtitleasownersofthecoveredlot.DefendantsappelleesspousesRicardoPascualandConsolacionSiosonareorderedtopayplaintiff
appellantRemediosS.EugenioGinomoraldamagesintheamountofP50,000.00,exemplarydamagesofP20,000[.00]andattorneysfeesofP20,000.00andP500.00per
appearance.[10]
Petitionerssoughtreconsiderationoftheruling.However,theCourtofAppealsdeniedtheirmotioninitsorderdated15June1994.
Hence,thispetition.
TheIssues
Petitionersallegethefollowingassignmentoferrors:
I.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTSCAUSEOFACTIONISNOTBARREDBYPRESCRIPTIONWHICH
FINDINGISMANIFESTLYCONTRARYTOLAWANDTHEAPPLICABLEDECISIONSOFTHISHONORABLECOURT.
II.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINNOTHOLDINGTHATPRIVATERESPONDENTDOESNOTHAVEANYTITLEANDHASUTTERLYFAILEDTO
PROVE ANY TITLE TO THE LOTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND IN ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF
PETITIONERS.
III.THECOURTOFAPPEALSACTEDWITHGRAVEABUSEOFDISCRETIONAMOUNTINGTOLACKOFJURISDICTIONANDINGROSSVIOLATIONOF

THE RULES OF COURT IN ORDERING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY COVERED BY TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. (232252) 1321 TO BE
PLACED IN THE NAME OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT, BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT IS LIMITED ONLY TO ONEHALF (1/2)
PORTIONOFTHEPROPERTY,ANDTHEOTHERHALFTHEREOFUNQUESTIONABLYBELONGSTOPETITIONERS.
IV.THECOURTOFAPPEALSERREDINHOLDINGTHATPETITIONERSACTEDFRAUDULENTLYANDINBADFAITHINSECURINGTHEIRCERTIFICATE
OF TITLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND IN ORDERING PETITIONERS TO PAY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS MORAL DAMAGES,
EXEMPLARYDAMAGESANDATTORNEYSFEES.[11]

Thepivotalquestionsare:(1)whetherprescriptionbarstheactionfiledbyREMEDIOS,and(2)whetherREMEDIOSisarealpartyininterest.
TheRulingoftheCourt
Thepetitionhasmerit.
TheActionisBarredbyPrescription
The trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is one based on fraud. REMEDIOS action seeks to recover real property that petitioners allegedly
acquiredthroughfraud.Consequently,thetrialcourtheldthattheactionprescribesinfouryearscountedfromREMEDIOSactualdiscoveryofpetitionersadverse
title.ThetrialcourtconcludedthatREMEDIOSbelatedlyfiledhersuiton4February1988becausesheactuallyknewofpetitionersadversetitlesince19November
1982.
Ontheotherhand,theCourtofAppealsheldthatwhatREMEDIOSfiledwasasuittoenforceanimpliedtrust.REMEDIOShadtenyearscountedfromactual
noticeofthebreachoftrust,thatis,theassertionofadversetitle,withinwhichtobringheraction.TheappellatecourtheldthatREMEDIOSseasonablyfiledher
complainton4February1988becausesheallegedlydiscoveredpetitionersadversetitleonlyon19November1982.
WhatREMEDIOSfiledwasanactiontoenforceanimpliedtrustbutthesameisalreadybarredbyprescription.
PrescriptivePeriodis10YearsCounted
FromRegistrationofAdverseTitle
Thefouryearprescriptiveperiodrelieduponbythetrialcourtappliesonlyifthefrauddoesnotgiverisetoanimpliedtrust,andtheactionistoannulavoidable
contractunderArticle1390[12]oftheCivilCode.Insuchacase,thefouryearprescriptiveperiodunderArticle1391[13]beginstorunfromthetimeofdiscoveryofthe
mistake,violence,intimidation,undueinfluenceorfraud.
In the present case, REMEDIOS does not seek to annul the KASULATAN. REMEDIOS does not assail the KASULATAN as a voidable contract. In fact,
REMEDIOS admits the validity of the sale of 1,335 square meters of land under the KASULATAN.However, REMEDIOS alleges that the excess area of 1,335

meters is not part of the sale under the KASULATAN. REMEDIOS seeks the removal of this excess area from TCT No. (232252) 1321 that was issued to
CONSOLACION.Consequently,REMEDIOSactionisforAnnulmentorCancellationofTransferCertificate[ofTitle]andDamages.[14]
REMEDIOS action is based on an implied trust under Article 1456 since she claims that the inclusion of the additional 1,335 square meters in TCT No.
(232252)1321waswithoutbasis.Ineffect,REMEDIOSassertsthatCONSOLACIONacquiredtheadditional1,335squaremetersthroughmistakeorfraudandthus
CONSOLACIONshouldbeconsideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitoftherightfulowneroftheproperty.Clearly,theapplicableprescriptiveperiodis
tenyearsunderArticle1144andnotfouryearsunderArticles1389and1391.
Itisnowwellsettledthattheprescriptiveperiodtorecoverpropertyobtainedbyfraudormistake,givingrisetoanimpliedtrustunderArticle1456[15]oftheCivil
Code,istenyearspursuanttoArticle1144.[16]Thistenyearprescriptiveperiodbeginstorunfromthedatetheadversepartyrepudiatestheimpliedtrust,which
repudiationtakesplacewhentheadversepartyregisterstheland.[17]
REMEDIOSfiledhercomplainton4February1988ormorethan19yearsafterCONSOLACIONregisteredhertitleoverLotNos.2Aand2Eon28October
1968.Unquestionably,REMEDIOSfiledthecomplaintlatethuswarrantingitsdismissal.AstheCourtrecentlydeclaredinSpousesAlfredov.SpousesBorras,[18]

FollowingCaro,[19]wehaveconsistentlyheldthatanactionforreconveyancebasedonanimpliedtrustprescribesintenyears.Wewentfurtherbyspecifyingthereferencepointof
thetenyearprescriptiveperiodasthedateoftheregistrationofthedeedortheissuanceofthetitle.
TheCourtofAppealsReckoningof
PrescriptivePeriodfromActualNotice
ofAdverseTitleNotJustified
InholdingthattheactionfiledbyREMEDIOShasnotprescribed,theCourtofAppealsinvokedthisCourtsrulinginAdillev.CourtofAppeals.[20]InAdille,the
Courtreckonedthetenyearprescriptiveperiodforenforcingimpliedtrustsnotfromregistrationoftheadversetitlebutfromactualnoticeoftheadversetitlebythe
cestuiquetrust.However,theCourt,injustifyingitsdeviationfromthegeneralrule,explained:
[W]hileactionstoenforceaconstructivetrustprescribes(sic)intenyears,reckonedfromthedateoftheregistrationoftheproperty,wexxxarenotpreparedtocounttheperiod
fromsuchdateinthiscase.Wenotethepetitionerssubrosaeffortstogetholdofthepropertyexclusivelyforhimselfbeginningwithhisfraudulentmisrepresentationinhis
unilateralaffidavitofextrajudicialsettlementthatheistheonlyheirandchildofhismotherFeliza[]withtheconsequencethathewasabletosecuretitleinhisnamealso.
(Emphasissupplied)
Suchcommissionofspecificfraudulentconductisabsentinthepresentcase.Otherthanassertingthatpetitionersareguiltyoffraudbecausetheysecuredtitle
toLotNos.2Aand2EwithanareatwicebiggerthanwhatCANUTOallegedlysoldtoCONSOLACION,REMEDIOSdidnotpresentanyotherproofofpetitioners
fraudulentconductakintoAdille.
CONSOLACIONobtainedtitletoLotNos.2Aand2EthroughtheKASULATANexecutedbyCANUTOandtheJOINTAFFIDAVITexecutedbyhissurviving
children,oneofwhom,Felicidad,isthemotherofREMEDIOS.TheKASULATANreferredtothesaleofCANUTOs10/70shareinLot2withoutspecifyingthearea

ofthelotsold.TheJOINTAFFIDAVITreferredtothePlanodeSubdivisionPsd34713withoutalsospecifyingtheareaofthelotsold.However,SubdivisionPlan
Psd 34713, as certified by the Assistant Director of Lands on 30 May 1952, showed an area of 2,670 square meters in the name of CANUTO.Based on these
documents,theRegisterofDeedsissuedTCTNo.(232252)1321toCONSOLACIONcoveringanareaof2,670squaremeters.
REMEDIOSdoesnotassailtheKASULATANortheJOINTAFFIDAVITasfictitiousorforged.REMEDIOSevenadmitstheauthenticityofSubdivisionPlanPsd
34713 as certified by the Assistant Director of Lands.[21]Moreover, REMEDIOS has not contested petitioners claim that CANUTO doubled his share in Lot 2 by
acquiringVICTORIANOsshare.[22]
Plainly,theincreaseintheareasoldfrom1,335squaremetersto2,670squaremetersisaglaringmistake.Thereis,however,noproofwhatsoeverthatthis
increaseinareawastheresultoffraud.Allegationsoffraudinactionstoenforceimpliedtrustsmustbeprovedbyclearandconvincingevidence.[23]Adille,which
isanchoredonfraud,[24]cannotapplytothepresentcase.
Atanyrate,evenifweapplyAdilletothiscase,prescriptionstillbarsREMEDIOScomplaint.AsexecutrixofCATALINAsLASTWILL,REMEDIOSsubmittedto
thethenCourtofFirstInstanceofCaloocaninSpecialProceedingsCaseNo.C208theinventoryofallthepropertycomprisingCATALINAsestate,whichincluded
LotNos.2Aand2E.In a motion dated 7 November 1977, CONSOLACION sought the exclusion of these lots from the inventory, invoking her title over them.
REMEDIOS was served a copy of the motion on 8 November 1977 against which she filed an opposition. Nevertheless, the trial court overruled REMEDIOS
objection. In its order of 3 January 1978, the trial court granted CONSOLACIONs motion and ordered the exclusion of Lot Nos. 2A and 2E from the estate of
CATALINA.REMEDIOSdidnotappealfromthisruling.
REMEDIOSthushadactualnoticeofpetitionersadversetitleon8November1977.Evenif,forthesakeofargument,thetenyearprescriptiveperiodbeginsto
run upon actual notice of the adverse title, still REMEDIOS right to file this suit has prescribed. REMEDIOS had until 11 November 1987 within which to file her
complaint.Whenshedidsoon4February1988,theprescriptiveperiodhadalreadylapsed.
RespondentisNotaRealPartyinInterest
NotonlydoesprescriptionbarREMEDIOScomplaint.REMEDIOSisalsonotarealpartyininterestwhocanfilethecomplaint,asthetrialcourtcorrectlyruled.
The1997RulesofCivilProcedurerequirethateveryactionmustbeprosecutedordefendedinthenameoftherealpartyininterestwhoisthepartywhostands
tobenefitorsufferfromthejudgmentinthesuit.[25]Ifonewhoisnotarealpartyininterestbringstheaction,thesuitisdismissibleforlackofcauseofaction.[26]
REMEDIOS anchored her claim over Lot Nos. 2A and 2E (or over its onehalf portion) on the devise of these lots to her under CATALINAs LAST WILL.
However,thetrialcourtfoundthattheprobatecourtdidnotissueanyorderadmittingtheLASTWILLtoprobate.REMEDIOSdoesnotcontestthisfinding.Indeed,
duringthetrial,REMEDIOSadmittedthatSpecialProceedingsCaseNo.C208isstillpending.[27]
Article838oftheCivilCodestatesthat[N]owillshallpasseitherrealorpersonalpropertyunlessitisprovedandallowedinaccordancewiththeRulesofCourt.
ThisCourthasinterpretedthisprovisiontomean,untiladmittedtoprobate,[awill]hasnoeffectwhateverandnorightcanbeclaimedthereunder.[28]REMEDIOS
anchorsherrightinfilingthissuitonherbeingadeviseeofCATALINAsLASTWILL.However,sincetheprobatecourthasnotadmittedCATALINAsLASTWILL,
REMEDIOShasnotacquiredanyrightundertheLASTWILL.REMEDIOSisthuswithoutanycauseofactioneithertoseekreconveyanceofLotNos.2Aand2Eor
toenforceanimpliedtrustovertheselots.

The appellate court tried to go around this deficiency by ordering the reconveyance of Lot Nos. 2A and 2E to REMEDIOS in her capacity as executrix of
CATALINAs LAST WILL. This is inappropriate because REMEDIOS sued petitioners not in such capacity but as the alleged owner of the disputed lots. Thus,
REMEDIOSallegedinhercomplaint:
3.TheplaintiffisanieceandcompulsoryheirofthelateCATALINASIOSONwhodiedsingleandwithoutanychildofherownandwho,duringherlifetime,wastheowner
ofthosetwo(2)parcelsoflandlocatedatTanza,Navotas,Rizal(nowMetroManila),formerlycoveredbyOriginalCertificateofTitleNo.4207oftheRegistryofDeedsforthe
ProvinceofRizal,xxx.
4.Theplaintiff,asidefrombeingthecompulsoryheirofthedeceasedCATALINASIOSON,hassoleandexclusiveclaimofownershipovertheabovementionedtwo(2)parcels
oflandbyvirtueofawillorHulingHabilinatPagpapasiyaexecutedbyCatalinaSiosononMay19,1964beforeNotaryPublicEfrenY.AngelesatNavotas,Rizal,inwhich
documentthedeceasedCatalinaSiosonspecificallyandexclusivelybequeathedtotheplaintifftheabovementionedLots2Aand2EofPsd34713approvedbytheBureauof
LandsonMay30,1952.CopyoftheHulingHabilinatPagpapasiyaconsistingoffour(4)pagesisheretoattachedandformsanintegralparthereofasAnnexA
5.SometimeonoraboutFebruary,1987,plaintiffdiscoveredthattheabovementionedLots2Aand2EofsubdivisionplanPsd34713arenowregisteredortitledinthename
ofthedefendantsunderTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321oftheRegistryofDeedsofRizal,nowMetroManilaDistrictIII.Copyofthetitleisheretoattachedand
formsanintegralparthereofasAnnexB
6.Uponfurtherinquiryandinvestigation,plaintiffdiscoveredthatthedefendantswereabletoobtaintitleintheirnameofthesaidparcelsoflandbyvirtueofaKasulatanng
BilihangTuluyanallegedlyexecutedbyCanutoSiosononSeptember26,1956beforeNotaryPublicJose[T.]delosSantosofNavotas,MetroManila.Copyofthesaiddocument
isheretoattachedandformsanintegralparthereofasAnnexC
7.TheplaintiffalsodiscoveredthatalthoughxxxtheoriginalsaledidnotspecifytheparcelsoflandsoldbyCanutoSioson,thedefendantssubmittedanallegedAffidavit
executedbyFelicidadSiosonandBeatrizSiosonidentifyingthelotssoldbyCanutoSiosontothedefendantsasLots2Aand2EofsubdivisionplanPsd34713.Copyofthe
AffidavitdatedOctober3,1968onthebasisofwhichthepresentTransferCertificateofTitleNo.(232252)1321wasissuedtothedefendantsisheretoattachedandformsan
integralparthereofasAnnexD
8.ThedefendantsareclearlyguiltyoffraudinpresentingtheaforementionedAffidavit(AnnexD)totheRegisterofDeedsasthebasisoftheirclaimtoLots2Aand2Ein
viewofthefactthattheparcelssoldtothembyCanutoSioson,assumingtherewassuchasale,weredifferentparcelsofland,Lots2Aand2Ebeingthepropertiesofthelate
CatalinaSiosonwhobequeathedthesametotheplaintiff.
xxxx
12.Becauseofthedefendantsfraudulentactuationsonthismatter,plaintiffsufferedandcontinious[sic]tosuffermoraldamagesarisingfromanxiety,shockandwounded
feelings.Defendantsshouldalsobeassessedexemplarydamagesbywayofalessontodeterthemfromagaincommittingthefraudulentacts,oractsofsimilarnature,byvirtueof
whichtheywereabletoobtaintitletotheparcelsoflandinvolvedinthiscasexxx.[29](Emphasissupplied)
Indeed,allthroughouttheproceedingsbelowandeveninherCommenttothispetition,REMEDIOScontinuedtopursueherclaimastheallegedownerofonehalfof
thedisputedlots.

OtherMattersRaisedinthePetition
TheCourtdeemsitunnecessarytopassupontheothererrorspetitionersassignedconcerningtheawardofdamagesandattorneysfeestoREMEDIOS.Such
awardassumesthatREMEDIOSisarealpartyininterestandthatshetimelyfiledhercomplaint.Asearliershown,thisisnotthecase.
WHEREFORE,weGRANTthepetition.TheDecisionoftheCourtofAppealsdated31January1994anditsResolutiondated15June1994areSETASIDE.
ThecomplaintfiledbyrespondentRemediosEugenioGino,dated2February1988isDISMISSED.
SOORDERED.
Davide,Jr.,C.J.,(Chairman),Vitug,YnaresSantiagoandAzcuna,JJ.,concur.
[1]PennedbyJusticeCoronaIbaySomera,withJusticesNathanaelP.DePano,Jr.,andAsaaliS.Isnaniconcurring.
[2]OCTNo.4207indicatesthesharingofthecoownersasfollows:

SimeonSioson10/70
VictorianoSioson10/70
CatalinaSioson10/70
FerminaSioson10/70
CanutoSioson10/70
CalixtoSioson5/70
FelipeSioson5/70
MarcianaGabriel2/70
IsabeloGabriel2/70
MargaritoGabriel2/70
SusanaGabriel2/70
EmilioGabriel2/70
[3]SubdivisionPlanPsd34713Lot2subdividedtheremainingportionofLot2asfollows:

FerminaSiosonLot2D,670sq.meters
Lot2H,2003sq.meters
CalixtoSiosonLot2F,500sq.meters
EstebanSiosonLot2G,2,499sq.meters

Lot2C,837sq.meters
[4]Exhibit7forPetitioners.
[5]Exhibit9forPetitioners.
[6]Exhibit8forPetitioners.
[7]HulingHabilinatPagpapasiya,ExhibitAforRespondent.
[8]Records,p.70.
[9]Rollo,p.71.
[10]Ibid.,p.45.
[11]Ibid.,p.11.
[12]Article1390oftheCivilCodeprovides:Thefollowingcontractsarevoidableorannullable,eventhoughtheremayhavebeennodamagetothecontractingparties:

(1)xxx
(2)Thosewheretheconsentisvitiatedbymistake,violence,intimidation,undueinfluenceorfraud.
xxx.
[13]Article1391oftheCivilCodeprovides:Theactionforannulmentshallbebroughtwithinfouryears.Thisperiodshallbegin:xxxIncaseofmistakeorfraud,fromthetimeofthediscoveryofthe

same.
[14]Records,p.1.
[15]Article1456oftheCivilCodeprovides:Ifpropertyisacquiredthroughmistakeorfraud,thepersonobtainingitis,byforceoflaw,consideredatrusteeofanimpliedtrustforthebenefitoftheperson

fromwhomthepropertycomes.
[16]Article1144oftheCivilCodeprovides:Thefollowingactionsmustbebroughtwithintenyearsfromthetimetherightofactionaccrues:

(1)xxx
(2)Uponanobligationcreatedbylaw
(3)xxx.
[17]SpousesAlfredov.SpousesBorras,G.R.No.144225,17June2003Vda.deDelgadov.CourtofAppeals,416Phil.263(2001)VillanuevaMijaresv.CourtofAppeals,386Phil.555(2000)David

v.Malay,376Phil.825(1999)HeirsofJoaquinTevesv.CourtofAppeals,375Phil.96(1999)Lebrillav.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.RNo.72623,18December1989,180SCRA188
Villagonzalov.IntermediateAppellateCourt,G.RNo.L71110,22November1988,167SCRA535Carantesv.CourtofAppeals,G.RNo.L33360,25April1977,76SCRA514.
[18]G.R.No.144225,17June2003.
[19]Carov.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.76148,20December1989,180SCRA401.
[20]G.R.No.L44546,29January1988,157SCRA455.

[21]Rollo,pp.169170.
[22]Rollo,pp.9,20.
[23]Jaramilv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.L31858,31August1977,78SCRA420.
[24]Samontev.CourtofAppeals,413Phil.487(2001).
[25]Rule3,Sec.2.
[26]Sustiguerv.Tamayo,G.RNo.29341,21August1989,176SCRA579.
[27]TSN,17March1989,p.15(RemediosEugenioGino).
[28]Caizav.CourtofAppeals,G.RNo.110427,24February1997,68SCRA640.
[29]Records,pp.13.