641 Phil. 110
NACHURA, J.:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the [respondents'] Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.
On the other hand, finding merit in the [petitioners'] Counterclaim, the [respondents] are hereby ordered to pay the [petitioners]:a) The reduced amount of P50,000.00 for attorney's fees; and
b) The costs of suit.
SO ORDERED.[7]
WHEREFORE, the appeal is GRANTED. The appealed Decision dated August 25, 2005 of the Regional Trial Court Branch 45, Manila is hereby SET ASIDE. In its stead, a NEW ONE IS ENTERED, declaring [respondents], spouses Celso and Mina Quijano, as co-owners of the subject lot to the extent of one-third (1/3) thereof which corresponds to that portion where their house stands.
Accordingly, [petitioners] are hereby ordered:
1) to partition the subject lot into three (3) equal portions of forty square meters (40 sq.m.) each, specifically allotting to [respondents] the portion where their house stands;
2) to reconvey to [respondents] the clean title to their portion of the subject lot;
3) to surrender the owner's copy of TCT No. 122489 to the Register of Deeds of Manila for the annotation of [respondents'] share thereon; and
4) to pay [respondents] attorney's fees and the costs of suit in the reasonable amount of P50,000.00.
SO ORDERED.[10]
2) That [respondents] are co-owners of one-third (1/3) portion pro indiviso of the residential lot where their residential house was constructed known as 1648 Main Street, Paco, Manila, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122489; x x x
3) That in their agreement with the lot owner, the name of the [respondent] Celso P. Quijano appears as one (1) of the Second Party [sic] who purchased the lot at the purchase price of P50,000.00 with P40,000.00 as down payment and the balance of P10,000.00 shall be paid on or before July 14, 1976, wherein the [respondent] Celso P. Quijano have (sic) paid the sum of P5,000.00 on the same due date of July 14, 1976;
4) That when the Deed of Absolute Sale was executed by the Vendor, the name of the [respondent] Celso P. Quijano, marr[ie]d to Mina Ney Quijano was omitted and the purchase price appeared to be only P20,000.00 and not P50,000.00 as appearing in their Agreement, thus when the Absolute Deed of Sale was presented to the Register of Deeds of Manila, only the names of Manuel P. Ney and Romulo P. Ney appeared as the registered owners in the above-mentioned Transfer Certificate of Title No.122489;
5) That Celso Quijano, however, was able to secure a Certification from the Vend[o]r Luz J. Lim the true and correct selling price agreed upon is P50,000.00 and the Vendees were Manuel P. Ney, Romulo P. Ney and [respondent] Celso Quijano and that the amount of P20,000.00 put in the Deed of Sale was at the instance of the Vendor with the consent of the Vendees;
6) That sometime in March 1991, [respondents] requested from the [petitioners] to segregate their Title to the one-third (1/3) portion of the lot [sic] where their house was constructed with an area of about forty (40) square meters more or less and [petitioners] agreed and executed a Deed of Reconveyance, but when [respondent] Celso P. Quijano presented the document to the Register of Deeds of Manila it [sic] was rejected because he can not present the Owner's copy;
x x x x
8) That from the records of the Register of Deeds of Manila, [respondent] Celso P. Quijano discovered that the whole property was mortgaged with [sic] the Metropolitan Bank & Trust Company, thus [respondents] were constrained to execute and register their adverse claim that they are co-owners of one-third (1/3) portion of the lot and their residential house therein;
9) That after the registration of the [respondent's] adverse claim, the Register of Deeds through Expedito A. Javier notified the [petitioners] to surrender the Owner's duplicate copy of Transfer Certificate of Title No. 122489 in order that a Memorandum be made thereon for the Notice of Adverse Claim, but the request of the Register of Deeds was not honored by the [petitioners];
x x x x
12) That by reason of the[petitioners'] refusal to surrender the Owner's copy of the Title to the Register of Deeds of Manila for partition and reconveyance, [respondents] were constrained to engage the services of counsel to protect their interest at an agreed amount of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully prayed that after due hearing judgment be rendered in favor of the [respondents] and against the [petitioners] ordering the latter as follows:
a) To surrender the Owner's copy of TCT No. 122489 to the Court or if refused that an Order be issued ordering the Register of Deeds of Manila to issue to the [respondents] their co-owner's copy if [sic] the Title;
b) Ordering the partition of the lot into equal shares of forty (40) square meters more or less and the lot where the [respondents'] residential house is constructed known as 1648 Main Street, Paco Manila be awarded and be reconveyed to the [respondents] as their share;
c) Ordering the [petitioners] to settle their obligations to [sic] the mortgagee bank, if any, and to reconvey to the [respondents] clean Title over their property.
d) Ordering [petitioners] jointly and severally to pay [respondents] moral damages in the amount of P100,000.00, exemplary damages in the sum of P100,000.00 and the sum of P50,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and costs.
[Respondents] further pray for such other reliefs and remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises.
The Court has ruled that the 10-year prescriptive period applies only when the person enforcing the trust is not in possession of the property. If a person claiming to be its owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. The reason is that the one who is in actual possession of the land claiming to be its owner may wait until his possession is disturbed or his title is attacked before taking steps to vindicate his right. His undisturbed possession gives him a continuing right to seek the aid of a court of equity to ascertain and determine the nature of the adverse claim of a third party and its effect on his own title, which right can be claimed only by one who is in possession.
An action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in 10 years. The reference point of the 10-year prescriptive period is the date of registration of the deed or the issuance of the title. The prescriptive period applies only if there is an actual need to reconvey the property as when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property. However, if the plaintiff, as the real owner of the property also remains in possession of the property, the prescriptive period to recover title and possession of the property does not run against him. In such a case, an action for reconveyance, if nonetheless filed, would be in the nature of a suit for quieting of title, an action that is imprescriptible.
[W]e acknowledge and recognized the rights, interests and participation of Celso P. Quijano, Filipino, of legal age, married to Mina P. Ney and resident of 1648 Main Street, Paco, Manila, as a co-owner of the one-third (1/3) portion of the said lot wherein his residential house is now constructed at the above-stated address, having paid the corresponding amount over the said 1/3 portion of the property for the acquisition costs but whose name does not appear in the Deed of Sale executed in our favor, thus resulting in the non-conclusion (sic) of his name in the above-stated Transfer Certificate of Title when issued as a co-owner.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the foregoing premises WE, MANUEL P. NEY and ROMULO P. NEY, do hereby transfer and convey unto said Spouses Celso P. Quijano and MINA P. NEY their one-third (1/3) portion share of the aforedescribed (sic) parcel of land where their residential house is now situated at their above-given address with an area of forty (40) square meters more or less by virtue of this Deed of Reconveyance.
[T]he Deed of Reconveyance, duly signed by [petitioners] themselves, put to rest the focal issue between the parties. There is no denying that it outweighs the evidence relied upon by [petitioners] despite the fact that they have the transfer certificate of title over the entire subject lot. It is settled that it is not the certificate of title that vests ownership. It merely evidences such title. x x x[17]