G.R. No. L-35213 August 31, 1978
BALDOMERA GARCIA and JUAN GARCIA, substituted by SOLEDAD GARCIA, et al., petitioners, vs. SERAFIN OROZCO substituted by IRENE ALBAN VDA. DE OROZCO, et al., and the COURT OF APPEALS, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a protracted dispute over two parcels of land. The original plaintiffs, Serafin, Carmen, Merced, and Arsenio Orozco, were the acknowledged natural children of the deceased Epifanio Orozco. Epifanio was married to Albina Garcia, sister of the original defendants, Juan and Baldomera Garcia. During their marriage, Epifanio acquired the subject lands. Upon Epifanio’s death in 1917, his widow Albina sold the Mataguisi land to her sister Baldomera. In subsequent intestate proceedings, Serafin Orozco, as judicial administrator, filed an action (Civil Case No. 5127) for recovery of the lands. A 1932 judgment, based on a compromise agreement, adjudicated the ownership of these lands to the estate of Epifanio Orozco, and Albina Garcia waived her usufructuary rights. Serafin was placed in possession in 1932 but was soon ousted by Juan Garcia, who thereafter possessed the lands.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the action for recovery of ownership and possession filed by the Orozco heirs in 1942 had already prescribed, given the 1932 judgment declaring the lands as part of Epifanio’s estate.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The action had not prescribed. The 1932 judgment in Civil Case No. 5127 constituted a final and executory declaration that the subject lands belonged to the intestate estate of Epifanio Orozco. This judgment conclusively settled ownership in favor of the estate, and thus in favor of Epifanio’s compulsory heirs, the Orozco children. Consequently, the subsequent possession by the Garcia siblings was that of a mere trustee or holder in bad faith. An action for reconveyance based on a constructive trust, such as this one, prescribes in ten years from the date the trust is repudiated. The ten-year period began to run not from the 1932 judgment, but from the act of adverse repudiation, which was Juan Garcia’s act of re-entry and ouster of Serafin Orozco shortly after the 1932 execution. The complaint filed in 1942 was well within this prescriptive period. The Court also upheld the procedural validity of the record reconstitution and the trial court’s assessment of damages, finding them supported by evidence.