This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2015-09-16 |
JARDELEZA, J. |
||||
| Whether an action for reconveyance prescribes or not is therefore determined by the nature of the action, that is, whether it is founded on a claim of the existence of an implied or constructive trust, or one based on the existence of a void or inexistent contract. This is evident in several of our past decisions. In Casipit v. Court of Appeals,[54] we rejected the claim of imprescriptibility and applied the 1 0-year prescription where the action filed was based on fraud: There is no dispute that an action for reconveyance based on a void contract is imprescriptible (Castillo, et al. v. Madrigal, et al., G.R. No. 62650, June 27, 1991; Baranda, et al. v. Baranda, et al., G.R. No. 73275, May 20, 1987, 150 SCRA 59). However, We simply cannot apply this principle to the present case because the action filed by petitioner before the trial court was 1) for reconveyance based on fraud since the ownership of private respondents over the questioned property was allegedly established on "false assertions, misrepresentations and deceptive allegations" (p. 182, Records); and 2) for rescission of the "Kasulatan ng Pagmamana at Paghahati" (pp. 173, 187, Records). x x x [55] | |||||