HEIRS OF TOMAS

DOLLETON V. FILESTATE MANAGEMENT

By: Payad, Azanith Ann B.

11593371 December 7,
2016

FACTS
Petitioners claimed in their complaints for Quieting of Title and/or Recovery
of Ownership and Possession with Preliminary Injunction/Restraining Order and
Damages that they have been in continuous, open, and exclusive possession
of the afore-described parcels of land for more than 90 years until they were
forcibly ousted by armed men hired by Fil-Estate Mgt in 1991.
Respondents cannot rely on the TCTs in their names to support their claim
over the subject properties since, as petitioners averred, the subject
properties were not covered by said certificates.
Fil-Estate filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds of: prescription, lack of
cause of action, laches and res judicata which RTC granted holding that
petitioners were unable to prove by clear and convincing evidence their title to
the said properties. CA affirmed the dismissal of the case.

ISSUE
WON RTC properly granted the
motion to dismiss on the basis of
prescription?

ARGUMENTS
Heirs of Tomas Dolleton,
et. al.
A full blown trial is
necessary to determine the
actual location on the
actual ground of the lots
covered by Fil-Estates title

Fil-Estate Management Inc.

Sec 32, P.D. 1529 an action
assailing a certificate of title should
be filed within one year after its
issuance
Arts. 1144 and 1456, NCC actions
for reconveyance of the subject
properties based on implied trust,
the filing of which prescribes after
10 years from the first registration
under the Torrens system

HELD
YES. RTC erred in granting the motion to dismiss. An affirmative
defense of prescription does not automatically warrant the
dismissal of a complaint. An allegation of prescription can be
effectively used only when the complaint on its face shows that
indeed the action has already prescribed.
If the issue of prescription is one involving evidentiary matters, a
full-blown trial on the merits is required.
In the case, respondents must first be able to establish the
evidence that the subject properties are indeed covered by their
certificates of title before they can argue that any remedy assailing
the registration has prescribed.

HELD
Petitioners main contention is that the subject properties from
which they were forcibly evicted were not covered by respondents
certificates of title. Petitioners improperly prayed for the
cancellation of the respondents TCTs in their complaints.
The complaints of the petitioners may be said to be in the nature
of an accion reinvindicatoria, an action for recovery of ownership
and possession of the subject properties, from which they were
evicted sometime between 1991 and 1994 by respondents.
An accion reinvindicatoria may be availed of within 10 years from
dispossesion.
Petition GRANTED; case is REMANDED to the RTC for further
proceedings.