[G.R. No. 115925.

August 15, 2003]

SPOUSES RICARDO PASCUAL and CONSOLACION SIOSON, petitioners, vs. COURT

OF APPEALS and REMEDIOS S. EUGENIO-GINO,respondents.

DECISION
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review of the Decision [1] dated 31 January 1994 of the Court of
Appeals ordering the Register of Deeds of Metro Manila, District III, to place TCT No. (232252)
1321 in the name of respondent Remedios S. Eugenio-Gino. The Decision ordered the
Register of Deeds to cancel the names of petitioners Ricardo Pascual and Consolacion Sioson
(petitioners) in TCT No. (232252) 1321. The Decision also directed petitioners to pay
respondent moral and exemplary damages and attorneys fees.

The Facts

Petitioner Consolacion Sioson (CONSOLACION) and respondent Remedios S. Eugenio-

Gino (REMEDIOS) are the niece and granddaughter, respectively, of the late Canuto Sioson
(CANUTO). CANUTO and 11 other individuals, including his sister Catalina Sioson
(CATALINA) and his brother Victoriano Sioson (VICTORIANO), were co-owners of a parcel
of land in Tanza, Navotas, Metro Manila. The property, known as Lot 2 of Plan Psu 13245, had
an area of 9,347 square meters and was covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4207
issued by the Register of Deeds of Rizal. CATALINA, CANUTO, and VICTORIANO each owned
an aliquot 10/70 share or 1,335 square meters of Lot 2. [2]
On 20 November 1951, CANUTO had Lot 2 surveyed and subdivided into eight lots (Lot
Nos. 2-A to 2-H) through Subdivision Plan Psd 34713 which the Director of Lands approved
on 30 May 1952. Lot No. 2-A, with an area of 670 square meters, and Lot No. 2-E, with an
area of 2,000 square meters, were placed under CANUTOs name. Three other individuals
took the remaining lots.[3]
On 26 September 1956, CANUTO and CONSOLACION executed a Kasulatan ng Bilihang
Tuluyan[4] (KASULATAN). Under the KASULATAN, CANUTO sold his 10/70 share in Lot 2 in
favor of CONSOLACION for P2,250.00. The KASULATAN, notarized by Notary Public Jose T.
de los Santos of Navotas, provides:

Na ako, CANUTO SIOSON, mamamayang Pilipino, may katampatang gulang, kasal kay
Raymunda San Diego, at naninirahan sa Tanza, Navotas, Rizal, sa bisa at pamamagitan ng
kasulatang ito ay nagpapatunay at nagpapatibay:
 1. Na ako ang lubos at tunay na may-ari ng 10/70 bahaging hindi hati
(10/70 porcion pro-indiviso) ng isang lagay na lupa (Lote No. 2, Plano
Psu-13245), na nasa sa nayon ng Tanza, Municipio ng Navotas,
Provincia ng Rizal, at ang descripcion o pagkakakilanlan ng nasabing
lote ay nakasaad sa Certificado Original, de Titulo No. 4207 ng Oficina
ng Registrador de Titulos ng Rizal, gaya ng sumusunod:

xxxx

2. Na dahil at alang-alang sa halagang Dalawang Libo Dalawang Daan

at Limampung Piso (P2,250.00), salaping Pilipino, na sa akin ay
ibinayad ni CONSOLACION SIOSON, kasal kay Ricardo S. Pascual, may
sapat na gulang, mamamayang Pilipino, at naninirahan sa Dampalit,
Malabon, Rizal at ang pagkakatanggap ng nasabing halaga ay aking
inaamin at pinatutunayan, ay aking ipinagbili, inilipat at isinalin, sa
pamamagitan ng bilihang tuluyan at walang pasubali a favor [sic] sa
nasabing si CONSOLACION SIOSON, sa kanyang tagapagmana at
mapaglilipatan ang lahat ng aking titulo, karapatan at kaparti na
binubuo ng 10/70 bahaging hindi hati (10/70 porcion pro-indiviso) ng
loteng descrito or tinutukoy sa itaas nito. (Emphasis supplied)

CONSOLACION immediately took possession of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. She later declared the
land for taxation purposes and paid the corresponding real estate taxes.[5]
On 23 October 1968, the surviving children of CANUTO, namely, Felicidad and Beatriz,
executed a joint affidavit[6] (JOINT AFFIDAVIT) affirming the KASULATAN in favor of
CONSOLACION. They also attested that the lots their father had sold to CONSOLACION were
Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E of Subdivision Plan Psd 34713. The JOINT AFFIDAVIT reads:

KAMING sina FELICIDAD SIOSON at BEATRIZ SIOSON, pawang mga Pilipino, kapuwa may
sapat na gulang at naninirahan, ang una sa Tanza, Navotas at ang ikalawa sa Concepcion,
Malabon, lalawigan ng Rizal, sa ilalim ng isang ganap na panunumpa alinsunod sa batas, ay
malayang nagsasalaysay ng mga sumusunod:

Na kami ang mga buhay na anak na naiwan ni CANUTO SIOSON na nagmamay-ari ng

10/70 bahaging hindi hati (10/70 porcion pro-indiviso) ng isang lagay na lupa (Lote No. 2,
plano Psu-13245), na nasa Nayon ng Tanza, Navotas, Rizal, at ang mga palatandaan nito ay
nasasaad sa Certificado Original de Titulo No. 4207 ng Tanggapan ng Registrador de Titulos
ng Rizal;

Na sa lubos naming kaalaman, ay ipinagbili ng aming Ama na si Canuto Sioson ang

kaniyang buong bahagi na 10/70 sa nasabing Lote No. 2, kay CONSOLACION SIOSON,
may-bahay ni Ricardo S. Pascual, na taga Dampalit, Malabon, Rizal, sa halagang P2,250.00,
salaping pilipino, noong ika 16 [sic] ng Septiembre, 1956, sa pamamagitan ng isang
KASULATAN NG BILIHANG TULUYAN na pinagtibay sa harap ng Notario Publico Jose T. de
los Santos nang pechang nabanggit, sa Navotas, Rizal, (Doc. No. 194, Page No. 84; Book
No. IV; Series of 1956);

Na ang nasabing lupa na ipinagbili ng aming Ama kay Consolacion Sioson ni Pascual, ay
nakikilala ngayong mga Lote No. 2-A at Lote 2-E ng Plano de Subdivision Psd-34713; na
pinagtibay ng Assistant Director of Lands noong Mayo 30, 1952;
Na aming ngayong pinatitibayan ang pagka-pagbili ng bahagi ng aming Ama kay
Consolacion Sioson ni Pascual ng ngayoy nakikilalang Lote No. 2-A at Lote No. 2-E ng Plano
de Subdivision Psd-34713. (Emphasis supplied)

On 28 October 1968, CONSOLACION registered the KASULATAN and the JOINT

AFFIDAVIT with the Office of the Register of Deeds of Rizal (Register of Deeds). Based on
these documents, the Register of Deeds issued to CONSOLACION Transfer Certificate of Title
No. (232252) 1321 covering Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E of Subdivision Plan Psd 34713 with a total
area of 2,670 square meters.
On 4 February 1988, REMEDIOS filed a complaint against CONSOLACION and her
spouse Ricardo Pascual in the Regional Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 165, for Annulment
or Cancellation of Transfer Certificate [of Title] and Damages. REMEDIOS claimed
that she is the owner of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E because CATALINA devised these lots to her in
CATALINAs last will and testament[7] (LAST WILL) dated 29 May 1964. REMEDIOS added
that CONSOLACION obtained title to these lots through fraudulent means since the area
covered by TCT (232252) 1321 is twice the size of CANUTOs share in Lot 2. REMEDIOS prayed
for the cancellation of CONSOLACIONs title, the issuance of another title in her name, and
the payment to her of damages.
Petitioners sought to dismiss the complaint on the ground of prescription. Petitioners
claimed that the basis of the action is fraud, and REMEDIOS should have filed the action within
four years from the registration of CONSOLACIONs title on 28 October 1968 and not some
19 years later on 4 February 1988. REMEDIOS opposed the motion, claiming that she became
aware of CONSOLACIONs adverse title only in February 1987. CONSOLACION maintained
that she had timely filed her complaint within the four-year prescriptive on 4 February 1988.
In its order of 28 April 1988, the trial court denied petitioners motion to dismiss. The
trial court held that the reckoning of the prescriptive period for filing REMEDIOS complaint is
evidentiary in nature and must await the presentation of the parties evidence during the
trial. During the pre-trial stage, REMEDIOS clarified that she was claiming only CATALINAs
10/70 share in Lot 2, or 1,335 square meters, which constitute of the area of Lot Nos. 2-A
and 2-E.[8] The trial of the case then ensued.

The Ruling of the Trial Court

On 26 November 1990, the trial court rendered judgment dismissing the case and
ordering REMEDIOS to pay petitioners P10,000 as attorneys fees and the cost of suit. The
trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is based on fraud, covered by the four-year
prescriptive period. The trial court also held that REMEDIOS knew of petitioners adverse title
on 19 November 1982 when REMEDIOS testified against petitioners in an ejectment suit
petitioners had filed against their tenants in Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. Thus, the complaint of
REMEDIOS had already prescribed when she filed it on 4 February 1988.
The trial court further ruled that REMEDIOS has no right of action against
petitioners because CATALINAs LAST WILL from which REMEDIOS claims to derive
her title has not been admitted to probate. Under Article 838 of the Civil Code, no will
passes real or personal property unless it is allowed in probate in accordance with the Rules
of Court. The dispositive portion of the trial courts decision provides:

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the defendants and against plaintiff,
ordering:
1. The dismissal of this case;

2. The plaintiff to pay the defendants the sum of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00)
Pesos as and for attorneys fees; and

3. The plaintiff to pay the costs of suit.[9]

REMEDIOS appealed to the Court of Appeals.

The Ruling of the Court of Appeals

On 31 January 1994, the Court of Appeals rendered judgment reversing the decision of
the trial court. The appellate court held that what REMEDIOS filed was a suit to enforce an
implied trust allegedly created in her favor when CONSOLACION fraudulently registered her
title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. Consequently, the prescriptive period for filing the complaint
is ten years, not four. The Court of Appeals counted this ten-year period from 19 November
1982. Thus, when REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4 February 1988, the ten-year
prescriptive period had not yet expired.
The appellate court held that CATALINAs unprobated LAST WILL does not
preclude REMEDIOS from seeking reconveyance of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E as the LAST
WILL may subsequently be admitted to probate. The dispositive portion of the appellate
courts ruling provides:

WHEREFORE, the decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The Registry of
Deeds of Rizal or Metro Manila, District III, is ordered to place Transfer Certificate of Title
No. (232252) 1321 under the name of Remedios S. Eugenio-Gino as executor of the will of
Catalina Sioson and cancel the names of the Spouses Ricardo Pascual and Consolacion
Sioson inscribed over said title as owners of the covered lot. Defendants-appellees spouses
Ricardo Pascual and Consolacion Sioson are ordered to pay plaintiff-appellant Remedios S.
Eugenio-Gino moral damages in the amount of P50,000.00, exemplary damages
of P20,000[.00] and attorneys fees of P20,000.00 and P500.00 per appearance.[10]

Petitioners sought reconsideration of the ruling. However, the Court of Appeals denied
their motion in its order dated 15 June 1994.
Hence, this petition.

The Issues

Petitioners allege the following assignment of errors:

I. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT
PRIVATE RESPONDENTS CAUSE OF ACTION IS NOT BARRED BY
PRESCRIPTION WHICH FINDING IS MANIFESTLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND
THE APPLICABLE DECISIONS OF THIS HONORABLE COURT.
II. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT PRIVATE
RESPONDENT DOES NOT HAVE ANY TITLE AND HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO
 PROVE ANY TITLE TO THE LOTS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND IN
ORDERING THE CANCELLATION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE OF
PETITIONERS.
III. THE COURT OF APPEALS ACTED WITH GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION
AMOUNTING TO LACK OF JURISDICTION AND IN GROSS VIOLATION OF
THE RULES OF COURT IN ORDERING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY COVERED BY
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE NO. (232252) 1321 TO BE PLACED IN
THE NAME OF PRIVATE RESPONDENT, BECAUSE THE CLAIM OF PRIVATE
RESPONDENT IS LIMITED ONLY TO ONE-HALF (1/2) PORTION OF THE
PROPERTY, AND THE OTHER HALF THEREOF UNQUESTIONABLY BELONGS
TO PETITIONERS.
IV. THE COURT OF APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PETITIONERS ACTED
FRAUDULENTLY AND IN BAD FAITH IN SECURING THEIR CERTIFICATE OF
TITLE TO THE PROPERTY INVOLVED IN THIS CASE, AND IN ORDERING
PETITIONERS TO PAY PRIVATE RESPONDENTS MORAL DAMAGES,
EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AND ATTORNEYS FEES.[11]
The pivotal questions are: (1) whether prescription bars the action filed by REMEDIOS,
and (2) whether REMEDIOS is a real party-in-interest.

The Ruling of the Court

The petition has merit.

The Action is Barred by Prescription

The trial court held that the action filed by REMEDIOS is one based on fraud. REMEDIOS
action seeks to recover real property that petitioners allegedly acquired through
fraud. Consequently, the trial court held that the action prescribes in four years counted from
REMEDIOS actual discovery of petitioners adverse title. The trial court concluded that
REMEDIOS belatedly filed her suit on 4 February 1988 because she actually knew of
petitioners adverse title since 19 November 1982.
On the other hand, the Court of Appeals held that what REMEDIOS filed was a suit to
enforce an implied trust. REMEDIOS had ten years counted from actual notice of the breach
of trust, that is, the assertion of adverse title, within which to bring her action. The appellate
court held that REMEDIOS seasonably filed her complaint on 4 February 1988 because she
allegedly discovered petitioners adverse title only on 19 November 1982.
What REMEDIOS filed was an action to enforce an implied trust but the same is
already barred by prescription.

Prescriptive Period is 10 Years Counted

From Registration of Adverse Title
 The four-year prescriptive period relied upon by the trial court applies only if the fraud
does not give rise to an implied trust, and the action is to annul avoidable contract under
Article 1390[12] of the Civil Code. In such a case, the four-year prescriptive period under
Article 1391[13] begins to run from the time of discovery of the mistake, violence, intimidation,
undue influence or fraud.
In the present case, REMEDIOS does not seek to annul the KASULATAN. REMEDIOS does
not assail the KASULATAN as a voidable contract. In fact, REMEDIOS admits the validity of
the sale of 1,335 square meters of land under the KASULATAN. However, REMEDIOS alleges
that the excess area of 1,335 meters is not part of the sale under the KASULATAN. REMEDIOS
seeks the removal of this excess area from TCT No. (232252) 1321 that was issued to
CONSOLACION. Consequently, REMEDIOS action is for Annulment or Cancellation of
Transfer Certificate [of Title] and Damages.[14]
REMEDIOS action is based on an implied trust under Article 1456 since she claims that
the inclusion of the additional 1,335 square meters in TCT No. (232252) 1321 was without
basis. In effect, REMEDIOS asserts that CONSOLACION acquired the additional 1,335 square
meters through mistake or fraud and thus CONSOLACION should be considered a trustee of
an implied trust for the benefit of the rightful owner of the property. Clearly, the applicable
prescriptive period is ten years under Article 1144 and not four years under Articles 1389 and
1391.
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 [15] of the Civil Code, is ten years
pursuant to Article 1144.[16] This ten-year prescriptive period begins to run from the date
the adverse party repudiates the implied trust, which repudiation takes place when the
adverse party registers the land.[17]
REMEDIOS filed her complaint on 4 February 1988 or more than 19 years after
CONSOLACION registered her title over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E on 28 October
1968. Unquestionably, REMEDIOS filed the complaint late thus warranting its dismissal. As
the Court recently declared in Spouses Alfredo v. Spouses Borras,[18]

Following Caro,[19] we have consistently held that an action for reconveyance based on an
implied trust prescribes in ten years. We went further by specifying the reference point of
the ten-year prescriptive period as the date of the registration of the deed or the issuance of
the title.

The Court of Appeals Reckoning of

Prescriptive Period from Actual Notice
of Adverse Title Not Justified

In holding that the action filed by REMEDIOS has not prescribed, the Court of Appeals
invoked this Courts ruling in Adille v. Court of Appeals.[20] In Adille, the Court reckoned
the ten-year prescriptive period for enforcing implied trusts not from registration of the
adverse title but from actual notice of the adverse title by the cestui que trust. However, the
Court, in justifying its deviation from the general rule, explained:

[W]hile actions to enforce a constructive trust prescribes (sic) in ten years, reckoned from
the date of the registration of the property, we x x x are not prepared to count the period
from such date in this case. We note the petitioners sub rosa efforts to get hold of the
property exclusively for himself beginning with his fraudulent misrepresentation in his
unilateral affidavit of extrajudicial settlement that he is the only heir and child of his
mother Feliza[] with the consequence that he was able to secure title in his name also.
(Emphasis supplied)

Such commission of specific fraudulent conduct is absent in the present case. Other
than asserting that petitioners are guilty of fraud because they secured title to Lot Nos. 2-A
and 2-E with an area twice bigger than what CANUTO allegedly sold to CONSOLACION,
REMEDIOS did not present any other proof of petitioners fraudulent conduct akin to Adille.
CONSOLACION obtained title to Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E through the KASULATAN executed
by CANUTO and the JOINT AFFIDAVIT executed by his surviving children, one of whom,
Felicidad, is the mother of REMEDIOS. The KASULATAN referred to the sale of CANUTOs
10/70 share in Lot 2 without specifying the area of the lot sold. The JOINT AFFIDAVIT referred
to the Plano de Subdivision Psd-34713 without also specifying the area of the lot
sold. However, Subdivision Plan Psd 34713, as certified by the Assistant Director of Lands
on 30 May 1952, showed an area of 2,670 square meters in the name of CANUTO. Based on
these documents, the Register of Deeds issued TCT No. (232252) 1321 to CONSOLACION
covering an area of 2,670 square meters.
REMEDIOS does not assail the KASULATAN or the JOINT AFFIDAVIT as fictitious or forged.
REMEDIOS even admits the authenticity of Subdivision Plan Psd 34713 as certified by the
Assistant Director of Lands.[21] Moreover, REMEDIOS has not contested petitioners claim that
CANUTO doubled his share in Lot 2 by acquiring VICTORIANOs share.[22]
Plainly, the increase in the area sold from 1,335 square meters to 2,670 square
meters is a glaring mistake. There is, however, no proof whatsoever that this increase in
area was the result of fraud. Allegations of fraud in actions to enforce implied trusts must be
proved by clear and convincing evidence.[23] Adille, which is anchored on fraud,[24] cannot
apply to the present case.
At any rate, even if we apply Adille to this case, prescription still bars REMEDIOS
complaint. As executrix of CATALINAs LAST WILL, REMEDIOS submitted to the then Court of
First Instance of Caloocan in Special Proceedings Case No. C-208 the inventory of all the
property comprising CATALINAs estate, which included Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E. In a motion
dated 7 November 1977, CONSOLACION sought the exclusion of these lots from the
inventory, invoking her title over them. REMEDIOS was served a copy of the motion on
8 November 1977 against which she filed an opposition. Nevertheless, the trial court overruled
REMEDIOS objection. In its order of 3 January 1978, the trial court granted CONSOLACIONs
motion and ordered the exclusion of Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E from the estate of CATALINA.
REMEDIOS did not appeal from this ruling.
REMEDIOS thus had actual notice of petitioners adverse title on 8 November 1977.
Even if, for the sake of argument, the ten-year prescriptive period begins to run upon actual
notice of the adverse title, still REMEDIOS right to file this suit has prescribed. REMEDIOS
had until 11 November 1987 within which to file her complaint. When she did so on 4 February
1988, the prescriptive period had already lapsed.

Respondent is Not a Real Party-in-Interest

Not only does prescription bar REMEDIOS complaint. REMEDIOS is also not a real party-
in-interest who can file the complaint, as the trial court correctly ruled.
 The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure require that every action must be prosecuted or
defended in the name of the real party-in-interest who is the party who stands to benefit or
suffer from the judgment in the suit.[25] If one who is not a real party-in-interest brings the
action, the suit is dismissible for lack of cause of action.[26]
REMEDIOS anchored her claim over Lot Nos. 2-A and 2-E (or over its one-half portion)
on the devise of these lots to her under CATALINAs LAST WILL. However, the trial court
found that the probate court did not issue any order admitting the LAST WILL to
probate. REMEDIOS does not contest this finding. Indeed, during the trial, REMEDIOS
admitted that Special Proceedings Case No. C-208 is still pending.[27]
Article 838 of the Civil Code states that [N]o will shall pass either real or personal
property unless it is proved and allowed in accordance with the Rules of Court. This Court
has interpreted this provision to mean, until admitted to probate, [a will] has no effect
whatever and no right can be claimed thereunder.[28] REMEDIOS anchors her right in filing
this suit on her being a devisee of CATALINAs LAST WILL. However, since the probate court
has not admitted CATALINAs LAST WILL, REMEDIOS has not acquired any right under the
LAST WILL. REMEDIOS is thus without any cause of action either to seek reconveyance of Lot
Nos. 2-A and 2-E or to enforce an implied trust over these lots.
The appellate court tried to go around this deficiency by ordering the reconveyance of Lot
Nos. 2-A and 2-E to REMEDIOS in her capacity as executrix of CATALINAs LAST WILL. This
is inappropriate because REMEDIOS sued petitioners not in such capacity but as the alleged
owner of the disputed lots. Thus, REMEDIOS alleged in her complaint:

3. The plaintiff is a niece and compulsory heir of the late CATALINA SIOSON who
died single and without any child of her own and who, during her lifetime, was the owner
of those two (2) parcels of land located at Tanza, Navotas, Rizal (now Metro Manila),
formerly covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 4207 of the Registry of Deeds for the
Province of Rizal, x x x.

4. The plaintiff, aside from being the compulsory heir of the deceased CATALINA
SIOSON, has sole and exclusive claim of ownership over the above-mentioned two (2)
parcels of land by virtue of a will or Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya executed by Catalina
Sioson on May 19, 1964 before Notary Public Efren Y. Angeles at Navotas, Rizal, in which
document the deceased Catalina Sioson specifically and exclusively bequeathed to the
plaintiff the above-mentioned Lots 2-A and 2-E of Psd-34713 approved by the Bureau of
Lands on May 30, 1952. Copy of the Huling Habilin at Pagpapasiya consisting of four (4)
pages is hereto attached and forms an integral part hereof as Annex A;

5. Sometime on or about February, 1987, plaintiff discovered that the above-

mentioned Lots 2-A and 2-E of subdivision plan Psd-34713 are now registered or titled in
the name of the defendants under Transfer Certificate of Title No. (232252) 1321 of the
Registry of Deeds of Rizal, now Metro-Manila District III. Copy of the title is hereto
attached and forms an integral part hereof as Annex B;

6. Upon further inquiry and investigation, plaintiff discovered that the defendants were
able to obtain title in their name of the said parcels of land by virtue of a Kasulatan ng
Bilihang Tuluyan allegedly executed by Canuto Sioson on September 26, 1956 before
Notary Public Jose [T.] de los Santos of Navotas, Metro-Manila. Copy of the said document
is hereto attached and forms an integral part hereof as Annex C;
7. The plaintiff also discovered that although x x x the original sale did not specify the
parcels of land sold by Canuto Sioson, the defendants submitted an alleged Affidavit
executed by Felicidad Sioson and Beatriz Sioson identifying the lots sold by Canuto Sioson
to the defendants as Lots 2-A and 2-E of subdivision plan Psd-34713. Copy of the Affidavit
dated October 3, 1968 on the basis of which the present Transfer Certificate of Title No.
(232252) 1321 was issued to the defendants is hereto attached and forms an integral part
hereof as Annex D;

8. The defendants are clearly guilty of fraud in presenting the aforementioned Affidavit
(Annex D) to the Register of Deeds as the basis of their claim to Lots 2-A and 2-E in view
of the fact that the parcels sold to them by Canuto Sioson, assuming there was such a
sale, were different parcels of land, Lots 2-A and 2-E being the properties of the late
Catalina Sioson who bequeathed the same to the plaintiff.

xxxx

12. Because of the defendants fraudulent actuations on this matter, plaintiff suffered and
continious [sic] to suffer moral damages arising from anxiety, shock and wounded feelings.
Defendants should also be assessed exemplary damages by way of a lesson to deter them
from again committing the fraudulent acts, or acts of similar nature, by virtue of which they
were able to obtain title to the parcels of land involved in this case x x x.[29] (Emphasis
supplied)

Indeed, all throughout the proceedings below and even in her Comment to this petition,
REMEDIOS continued to pursue her claim as the alleged owner of one-half of the disputed
lots.

Other Matters Raised in the Petition

The Court deems it unnecessary to pass upon the other errors petitioners assigned
concerning the award of damages and attorneys fees to REMEDIOS. Such award assumes
that REMEDIOS is a real party-in-interest and that she timely filed her complaint. As earlier
shown, this is not the case.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Decision of the Court of Appeals dated 31
January 1994 and its Resolution dated 15 June 1994 are SET ASIDE. The complaint filed by
respondent Remedios Eugenio-Gino, dated 2 February 1988 is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.