Carrantes vs. CA (digest)

Maximino Carrantes vs. Court of Appeals, Bilad Carrantes, Lauro Carrantes, Eduardo Carrantes, and Michael Tumpao

76 SCRA 514

Facts: Mateo Carantes, original owner of Lot No. 44 situated at Loakan, Baguio City, died in 1913 leaving his widow Ogasia, and six children, namely, Bilad, Lauro, Crispino, Maximino, Apung and Sianang,. In 1930, the government, in order to expand the landing field of the Loakan Airport, filed for the expropriation of a portion of Lot. No. 44. Said lot was subdivided into Lots. No. 44A to 44E for the purpose.

In 1913, Maximino Carrantes (MAX) was appointed the judicial administrator of the estate of Mateo. Four heirs, namely, Bilad, Lauro, Sianang, and Crisipino, executed a deed denominated “Assignment of Right to Inheritance” assigning to Max their rights over said lot in 1939. The stated monetary consideration is P1.00. On same date, Max sold Lot Nos. 44B and 44C to the government. One year later the Court of First Instance, upon joint petition of the Carrantes heirs, issued an order cancelling O.C.T. No. 3 and TCT No. 2533 was issued in its place.

On 16 March 1940, Max registered the deed of “Assignment of Right to Inheritance”. Thus, TCT No. 2533 was cancelled and TCT 2540 was issued in the name of Max. A formal deed of Sale was also executed by Max on the same date in favor of the government. Hence, TCT 2540 was cancelled and new TCTs were issued in favor of the government and Max, respectively. On 4 Sept. 1958, Bilad, Lauro, and Crispino, along with the surviving heirs of Apung and Sianang filed complaint in the CFI.

They claimed that the execution of the deed of assignment was attended by fraud. The trial court decided that the action of the heirs had already prescribed since an action on fraud prescribes on four years from discovery of such, in this case, on 16 March 1940 when Max registered the deed of assignment. The Court of Appeals reversed and found that a constructive trust was created. Hence, the present petition.

Issue: 1. whether a constructive trust involves a fiduciary relationship? 2. Whether action had already prescribed?

Held: 1. The court, assuming that there was fraud, and in turn, a constructive trust in favor of the other heirs, said that constructive trust does not involve a promise nor fiduciary relations. Hence, the respondent court’s conclusion that the rule on constructive notice does not apply because there was a fiduciary relationship between the parties lacks the necessary premise.

2. Action had already prescribed because there was constructive notice to the heirs when Maximino registered the deed of assignment with the register of deeds on 16 March 1940. Such date is the reckoning point of counting prescription based on fraud.

Anent respondent court’s contention that constructive trust is imprescriptible, the court said that it is untenable. It is already settled that constructive trusts prescribes in 10 years. In this case, the ten year period started on 16 March 1940. And since the respondents commenced the action only on 4 Sept. 1958, the same is barred by prescription.

***photo borrowed from: (http://k53.pbase.com/o6/78/737778/1/73028960.j0oF4nm7.Rnwy27021606113014BAG.jpg