Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
FACTS:
Lot 4673 was registered in the names of Florentina Rapaya,
Victorino Cuizon among others covered by an OCT. Sometime
thereafter, Jorgea Igot-Soro ño et al executed an Extra-judicial
Partition claiming to be the only surviving heirs of the registered
owners, through which they were issued a TCT.
EPZA acquired title to said land by virtue of the RTC decision and
was issued a corresponding TCT.
The Heirs of the Florentina Rapaya and Juan Cuizon filed a
complaint to nullify several documents including the TCT issued to
EPZA for they were excluded from the extrajudicial settlement of
the estate.
EPZA filed a motion to dismiss on the ground of prescription and
was denied thus elevated the case to the CA wherein the CA ruled
that the heirs of Igot-Soroño defrauded the other heirs by falsely
representing that they were the only heirs enabling them to
appropriate the land in favor of EPZA. This method of acquiring
property created a constructive trust in favor of the defrauded
party and grants them the right to vindicate regardless of the lapse
of time. Thus, the case at bar.
ISSUE/S:
1) Whether or not private respondent’s claim over the expropriated
land has prescribed
2) Whether or not reconveyance lies against expropriated property
HELD:
1) YES. As provided in the Rules of Court, persons unduly deprived
of their lawful participation in a settlement may assert their claim
only w/in the 2-year period after the settlement and distribution of
the estate. However, this prescriptive period will not apply to those
who had not been notified of the settlement.
The only exception to this rule is when the title still remains in the
hands of the heirs who have fraudulently caused the partition of
the said property. In the case at bar, the title has already passed
to an innocent purchaser for value, the gov’t through EPZA.
However, the private respondents are not w/o remedy. They can
sue for damages their co-heirs