ALFREDO V. BORRAS (REMEDIAL)

In a PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI under Rule 45, this Court reviews only errors of law and not errors of facts. The factual findings of the appellate court are generally binding on this Court. This applies with greater force when both the trial court and the CA are in complete agreement on their factual findings. In this case, there is no reason to deviate from the findings of the lower courts. The facts relied upon by the trial court and appellate courts are borne out by the record. We agree with the conclusions drawn by the lower courts from these facts.

The action is not barred by prescription and laches. In reality, the ultimate relief sought by respondents is the RECONVEYANCE to them of the subject land. An action for reconveyance is one that seeks to transfer property, wrongfully registered by another, to its rightful and legal owner. The body of the pleading or complaint determines the nature od the action, not its title Or heading. Thus. the present action should be treated as one for reconveyance.

To determine when the prescriptive period commenced in an action for reconveyance, plaintiff's possession of the disputed property is material. an action for reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in 10 years. The 10-year 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.

Neither is the action barred by laches. We have defined LACHES as the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable time, to do that which, by the exercise of due diligence, could or should have been done earlier. it is negligence or omission to assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that the party entitled to assert it either had abandoned it or declined to assert it. Respondents discovered in January 1994 the subsequent sale of the subject land and they filed this case in March 1994. Plainly, they did not sleep on their rights.

LUCASAN V. PDIC (CIVIL, REDEMPTION, PROPERTY)

To avail of the remedy of QUIETING OF TITLE, two indispensable requisites must concur, namely:

1. the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of action; and


2. the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown in fact invalid or inoperative despite it prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

Stated simply, the plaintiff must show that he has a legal title or at least an equitable title over the real property in dispute, and that some deed or proceeding beclouds its validity or efficacy.

Unfortunately, the foregoing requisites are wanting in this case. Lucasan admitted that he failed to redeem the property during the redemption period, on account of his ten limited financial situation. It was only 15 years later that he manifested his desire to reacquire the properties. Clearly thus, he had lost whatever right ha had over the lots.

The payment of loans made by Lucasan cannot in any way operate to restore whatever right he had over the subject properties. Such payment only extinguished his loan obligations to the mortgagee banks and the liens which Lucasan claimed were subsisting at the time of the registration of the notice of embargo and certification of sale.

Neither can Lucasan capitalize on PBC's failure to file a petition for consolidation of ownership after the expiration of the redemption period. with the rule that the expiration of the 1-year redemption period forecloses the obligor's right to redeem ans that the sale thereby becomes absolute, the issuance thereafter of a final deed of sale is at best a mere formality and mere confirmation of the title that is already vested in the purchaser.

Certainly, Lucasan no longer possess any legal or equitable title to or interest over the subject parcels of land; hence, he cannot validly maintain an action for quieting of title.