15. HEIRS OF JOSE OLVIGA v.
CA persons claiming possession and adverse interests in Lot 13 and Eutiquio's
GR No. 104813
October 21, 1993
By: YRREVERRE
____________________________________________________________________
Topic: TRUST - PRESCRIPTION
Petitioners: HEIRS OF JOSE OLVIGA, NAMELY: PLACIDA S. OLVIGA, VIRGILIO
OLVIGA, LOLITA OLVIGA, CARMENCITA O. ALPUERTO and JEANETTE OLILA
Respondents: THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, ANGELITA R. GLOR, SERILINA G.
JAMON, EMELITA G. MADELA, EMAN G. MANALO, MYRNA GLOR, FELIPE GLOR,
GAUNDENCIO GLOR and CORNELIO GLOR,
Ponente: GRINO-AQUINO, J.
____________________________________________________________________
DOCTRINE: an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or
constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of
registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property
FACTS
 In 1950, then twelve-year-old Eutiquio Pureza and his father cleared and
cultivated Lot 13 of the Guinayangan Public Land Subdivision. They
introduced in 1954 improvements to such land. Upon the land's release for
disposition, the Bureau of Lands surveyed it in Eutiquio Pureza's name.
 Godofredo (Jose Olviga's son and brother of petitioners Virgilio and Lolita
Olviga-Olila) protested the survey but with respect to the 1/2 hectare
portion which he claimed.
 Godofredo's protest is of public record in the Bureau of Lands and it stated
that he admitted the lot belonged to Eutiquio except for the 1/2 hectare
portion
 Eutiquio filed a homestead application in 1960 for Lot 13, but since no
action was done on his application, he transferred his rights to the lot in
1961 to Cornelio Glor, Sr..
 Neither the homestead application of Eutiquio nor the proposed transfer
of his rights to Cornelio Glor was acted upon by the Director of Lands
 Cornelio Glor was sickly and since his wife Angelita was unschooled, they
failed to follow up Eutiquio's homestead application. Angelita testified that
she was never notified about the outcome of said proceedings.
 Jose Olviga (Father of petitioners) were Glors' neighbors. Jose claimed the
adjoining lands of Lot 12 and 13. He falsely omitted that there were
sale of rights to Cornelio Sr. in 1961.
 Thus in 1967, the lands were awarded to Jose Olviga. He requested later in
1971 that the land be splitted into two separate lots with separate titles.
He later on transferred Lot 13 to his daughter Lolita and her husband Jaime
Olila.
 Cornelio's widow Angelita filed in the Regional Trial Court of Calauag,
Quezon an action against the heirs of Jose Olviga to reconvey that parcel
of land to her and her heirs.
 RTC - rendered judgment in Angelita's favor and ordered the Olvigas' to
reconvey the land
 CA - affirmed. It also found that spouses Jaime and Lolita Olviga-Olila were
not in possession of the disputed land nor innocent purchasers for value
and that the Glors and their predecessor-in-interest Eutiquio Pureza were
the possessors.
 Petitioner appealed to the SC. Petitioner contends that the action has
prescribed.

ISSUE: W/N the action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on implied or
constructive trust has already prescribe - No
HELD:
 With regard to the issue of prescription, this Court has ruled a number of
times before that an action for reconveyance of a parcel of land based on
implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference
being the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the
certificate of title over the property
 But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession of the
property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof 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.
 In the case at bar, private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest
were in actual possession of the property since 1950. Their undisturbed
possession gave them the continuing right to seek the aid of a court of
equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of petitioners, who in
1988 disturbed their possession.
 RESPONDENTS WON
WHEREFORE, findings no reversible error in the decision of the Court of Appeals,
the petition for review is DENIED, with costs against the petitioners.