Scribd
Upload
75 views2 pages

216428-2018-Andrino v. Top Services Inc.20210424-12-Gzqkjn

The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied Marcelino Andrino's petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that upheld the Regional Trial Court's ruling. The Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court had found that Andrino's action to recover property allegedly obtained by fraud had prescribed after 10 years under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling and found that Andrino failed to show any reversible error in the lower courts' decisions. It also noted that the factual findings of the lower courts were entitled to respect.

Uploaded by

Gina Roth
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
75 views2 pages

216428-2018-Andrino v. Top Services Inc.20210424-12-Gzqkjn

The Supreme Court of the Philippines denied Marcelino Andrino's petition for review of a Court of Appeals decision that upheld the Regional Trial Court's ruling. The Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court had found that Andrino's action to recover property allegedly obtained by fraud had prescribed after 10 years under the Civil Code. The Supreme Court affirmed this ruling and found that Andrino failed to show any reversible error in the lower courts' decisions. It also noted that the factual findings of the lower courts were entitled to respect.

Uploaded by

Gina Roth
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 237028. June 18, 2018.]

MARCELINO S. ANDRINO, REPRESENTED BY ILUMINADA C.


RESTIFICAR, petitioner, vs. TOP SERVICES, INC., AND THE
REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF RIZAL,
respondents.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution
dated June 18, 2018 which reads as follows:
"G.R. No. 237028 (Marcelino S. Andrino, represented by
Iluminada C. Restificar v. Top Services, Inc., and the Register of
Deeds for the Province of Rizal). — The motion for extension of time to
file a petition for review on certiorari dated February 13, 2018 is GRANTED.
Nonetheless, after review of the records, the Court resolves to DENY the
petition and AFFIRM the Court of Appeals' (CA) Decision dated August 25,
2017 and Resolution dated January 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 105984 for
failure to sufficiently show that the CA committed any reversible error in
affirming the Decision of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 255, Las
Piñas City. TIADCc

The CA correctly upheld the findings of the RTC that the action of
petitioner had long prescribed. It is now well-settled that the prescriptive
period to recover property obtained by fraud or mistake, giving rise to an
implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, is 10 years pursuant to
Article 1144. This 10-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date the
adverse party repudiates the implied trust. The registration of an instrument
in the Office of the Register of Deeds constitutes constructive notice to the
whole world, and, therefore, discovery of the fraud is deemed to have taken
place at the time of registration. Such registration is deemed to be a
constructive notice that the alleged fiduciary or trust relationship has been
repudiated. 1
Notably, an action for reconveyance and annulment of title does not
seek to question the contract which allowed the adverse party to obtain the
title to the property. What is put on issue in an action for reconveyance and
cancellation of title is the ownership of the property and its registration. It
does not question any fraudulent contract. Should that be the case, the
applicable provisions are Articles 1390 and 1391 of the Civil Code. 2
All the other issues raised by petitioner are factual in nature and we
find that they have already duly passed upon by the trial court and the CA.
These questions of fact are generally not within the scope of a review on
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com
certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court. Petitioner failed to raise any
compelling and exceptional reasons for us to depart from this general rule.
Thus, the factual findings of the trial court and the CA must be accorded
respect. cSEDTC

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The Decision dated August 25,


2017 and Resolution dated January 23, 2018 in CA-G.R. CV No. 105984 are
AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED." Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated as Acting
Chairperson of the First Division per Special Order No. 2559 dated May 11,
2018; Gesmundo, J., designated as Acting Member of the First Division per
Special Order No. 2560 dated May 11, 2018.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENA


Acting Division Clerk of Court

Footnotes

1. Aboitiz v. Po, G.R. No. 208450, June 5, 2017, 825 SCRA 457, 482-484 citing
Crisostomo v. Garcia, Jr., G.R. No. 164787, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 402
and Duque v. Domingo , G.R. No. L-33762, December 29, 1977, 80 SCRA 654.

2. Id. at 483-484.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2021 cdasiaonline.com

You might also like