FABIAN vs.

FABIAN

G.R. No. L-20449

January 29, 1968

FACTS: Pablo Fabian bought from the Philippine Government lot 164 of the Friar Lands Estate in
Muntinlupa, Rizal. By virtue of this purchase, he was issued sale certificate 547. He died on August 2,
1928, survived by four children, namely, Esperanza, Benita I, Benita II,and Silbina.

On October 5, 1928 Silbina Fabian and Teodora Fabian, niece of the deceased, executed an affidavit. On
the strength of this affidavit, sale certificate 547 was assigned to them.

The acting Director of Lands, on behalf of the Government, sold lot 164 to Silbina Fabian Teodora Fabian.
The vendees spouses forthwith took physical possession thereof, cultivated it, and appropriated the
produce. In that same year, they declared the lot in their names for taxation purposes. In 1937 the RD of
Rizal issued a TCT over lot 164 in their names. They later subdivided the lot into 2 equal parts.

The plaintiffs filed the present action for reconveyance against the defendants spouses, averring that
Silbina and Teodora, through fraud perpetrated in their affidavit aforesaid. That by virtue of this affidavit,
the said defendants succeeded in having the sale certificate assigned to them and thereafter in having
lot 164 covered by said certificate transferred in their names; and that by virtue also of these assignment
and transfer, the defendants succeeded fraudulently in having lot 164 registered in their names. They
further allege that the land has not been transferred to an innocent purchaser for value. A reconveyance
thereof is prayed for.

In their answer, the defendants spouses claim that Pablo Fabian was not the owner of lot 164 at the time
of his death on August 2, 1928 because he had not paid in full the amortizations on the lot; that they are
the absolute owners thereof, having purchased it from the Government, and from that year having
exercised all the attributes of ownership thereof up to the present; and that the present action for
reconveyance has already prescribed. The dismissal of the complaint is prayed for.

The lower court rendered judgment declaring that the defendants spouses had acquired a valid and
complete title to the property by acquisitive prescription, and accordingly dismissed the complaint. The
latters motion for reconsideration was thereafter denied. Hence, the present recourse.

ISSUE(2) May laches constitute a bar to an action to enforce a constructive trust?

HELD: The judgment a quo, dismissing the complaint, is affirmed

2. The assignment and sale of the lot to the defendants Silbina and Teodora were therefore null and void.
To the extent of the participation of the appellants, application must be made of the principle that if
property is acquired through fraud, the person obtaining it is considered a trustee of an implied trust for
the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

Laches may bar an action brought to enforce a constructive trust such as the one in the case at bar.
Illuminating are the following excerpts from a decision penned by Mr. Justice Reyes: But in constructive
trusts, . . . the rule is that laches constitutes a bar to actions to enforce the trust, and repudiation is not
required, unless there is a concealment of the facts giving rise to the trust The assignment of sale
certificate was effected in October 1928; and the actual transfer of lot 164 was made on the following
November 14. It was only on July 8, 1960, 32 big years later, that the appellants for the first time came
forward with their claim to the land. The record does not reveal, and it is not seriously asserted, that the
appellees concealed the facts giving rise to the trust. Upon the contrary, paragraph 13 of the stipulation
of facts of the parties states with striking clarity that defendants herein have been in possession of the
land in question since 1928 up to the present publicly and continuously under claim of ownership; they
have cultivated it, harvested and appropriated the fruits for themselves.