VDA. DE RETUERTO vs.

BARZ
G.R. No. 148180 (2001)

FACTS
 Vda. de Retuerto, et. al. are the heirs of Panfilo Retuerto, while Barz, et. al. are the heirs of Pedro Barz
who is the sole heir of Juana Perez Barz.
 Juana Perez Barz was the original owner of Lot No. 896 having an area of 13,160 square meters. Before
her death on April 16, 1929, she executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of Panfilo Retuerto over a
parcel of land, identified as Lot No. 896-A, a subdivision of Lot No. 896, with an approximate area of
2,505 square meters.
 On July 22, 1940, the Court issued an Order directing the Land Registration Commission for the issuance
of the appropriate Decree in favor of Panfilo Retuerto over the said parcel of land. However, no such
Decree was issued as directed by the Court because, by December 8, 1941,the Second World War ensued
in the Pacific.
 Panfilo failed to secure the appropriate decree after the war.
 Sometime in 1966, Pedro Barz, as the sole heir of Juana Perez, filed and application, with the then CFI of
Cebu for the confirmation of his title over Lot 896 which included the Lot sold to
Panfilo Retuerto. The Court ruled in his favor declaring him the lawful owner of the said property. Thus,
Original Certificate of Title No. 521 was issued.
 Lot No. 896-A however was continuously occupied by Vda. de Retuerto, et. al. A
confrontation arose and as a result,
Barz filed an action on September 5, 1989 for “Quieting of Title, Damages and Attorney’s Fees.”
 In their answer, petitioners claimed that they were the owners of a portion of the lot which was registered
under the name of Pedro Barz and therefore the issuance of the Original Certificate of Title in Pedro Barz’s
name did not vest ownership but rather it merely constituted him as a trustee under a constructive trust.
They further contend that Pedro Barz
misrepresented with the land registration court that he inherited the whole lot therebyconstituting fraud
on his part.
ISSUE: W/N Pedro Barz committed fraud by misrepresenting in the land registration court that he owns the whole
lot inherited.
HELD
 NO. In the 1966 decision of the Land Registration Court in LRC No. 529, it was found that Pedro Barz,
private respondents predecessor-in-interest, was the lawful owner of the subject property as he and his
predecessors-in-interest had been in peaceful, continuous and open possession thereof in the concept of
owner since 1915. Even assuming arguendo that Pedro Barz acquired title to the property through mistake
or fraud, petitioners are nonetheless barred from filing their claim of ownership. An action
for reconveyance based on an implied or constructive trust prescribes within ten years from the time of
its creation or upon the alleged fraudulent registration of the property. Since registration of real property
is considered a constructive notice to all persons, then the ten-year prescriptive period is reckoned from
the time of such registering, filing or entering. Thus, petitioners should have filed an action for
reconveyance within ten years from the issuance of OCT No. 521 in November 16, 1968. This, they failed
to do so.