Reckoning point of the prescriptive period to claim against the Assurance Fund | Assurance Fund | LAND TITLES AND DEEDS

Reckoning Point of the Prescriptive Period to Claim Against the Assurance Fund

Under the framework of Philippine law, particularly the Property Registration Decree (Presidential Decree No. 1529), the Assurance Fund is established to indemnify individuals who suffer damage as a result of the operation of the Torrens System of land registration. This fund is primarily intended to protect innocent parties who, despite due diligence, lose their property or suffer damages due to fraud or errors in the registration process.

Legal Basis

1. Section 95, P.D. 1529 provides the general rule for recovery from the Assurance Fund:

   • It allows a person who sustains loss or damage due to fraud or errors in the Torrens registration process to seek indemnification from the Assurance Fund.
   • This claim is subject to a prescriptive period as determined under the law.

2. Relevant Civil Code Provisions on prescription of actions:

   • The reckoning point for the prescriptive period may depend on whether the claim is grounded in tort or quasi-delict, fraud, or a violation of specific statutory rights.

---

Reckoning Point of the Prescriptive Period

The prescriptive period to claim against the Assurance Fund is generally ten (10) years as it is an action founded on a written law (P.D. 1529). However, the reckoning point of this period depends on the specific circumstances of the case.

1. From the Time of Registration of Title

• If the claim against the Assurance Fund arises due to the erroneous issuance of a certificate of title, the prescriptive period begins to run from the date of the registration of the title.
• Example: If a fraudulent certificate of title was issued on January 1, 2010, the prescriptive period to file a claim would start on this date and end by January 1, 2020.

2. From the Time the Aggrieved Party Knew or Should Have Known the Fraud

• In cases involving fraud, the reckoning point may be delayed until the aggrieved party discovers, or through the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have discovered the fraud.
• This is consistent with Article 1144 of the Civil Code, which applies to actions arising from fraud or mistake.
• Example: If fraud in the issuance of a title is discovered only in 2022, the prescriptive period would commence in 2022, even if the fraudulent title was issued earlier.

3. From the Date of Adverse Judicial Decision

• If the aggrieved party’s claim arises after a judicial decision declares that the title they rely upon is void, the prescriptive period may begin on the date the judgment becomes final and executory.
• Example: If a court decision on January 1, 2023, nullifies a certificate of title due to fraud, the ten-year period to claim from the Assurance Fund starts from this date.

4. In Case of Ongoing Possession or Uninterrupted Use

• If the aggrieved party remains in possession of the property or continues to benefit from its use, some courts have held that prescription may not yet begin until the adverse possession is disturbed or title is formally challenged.

---

Jurisprudential Principles

The Supreme Court has clarified the reckoning point for the prescriptive period in claims against the Assurance Fund in various cases:

1. Heirs of Santiago vs. Heirs of Santiago (G.R. No. 187888, April 10, 2013):

   • The Court ruled that prescription does not begin to run until the injured party discovers the fraud or suffers actual damage. This doctrine ensures that the Assurance Fund serves its protective purpose.

2. Republic vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 121211, December 10, 1999):

   • Held that the ten-year prescriptive period applies strictly and begins from the registration of the title unless fraud is proven, in which case the period begins from the discovery of fraud.

3. Manotok Realty, Inc. vs. CLT Realty Development Corporation (G.R. No. 123346, August 15, 2006):

   • Emphasized that the Assurance Fund is a remedy of last resort. Claimants must exhaust all remedies before the Fund can be tapped, and the prescriptive period is counted from when the right to seek indemnity accrues.

---

Practical Considerations

1. Exhaustion of Remedies:

   • Before claiming from the Assurance Fund, the claimant must first exhaust all remedies against the person responsible for the fraud or error.
   • The prescriptive period for these preliminary actions may influence the reckoning point for the claim against the Fund.

2. Timely Assertion of Rights:

   • Claimants should act promptly and vigilantly. Courts may strictly enforce the prescriptive period, especially if the claimant delays unreasonably after discovering the fraud.

3. Documentary Evidence:

   • Claims against the Assurance Fund require robust documentation, including proof of loss, the fraud or error, and the exhaustion of other remedies.

4. Coordination with the Land Registration Authority (LRA):

   • The LRA administers the Assurance Fund. Claimants must comply with its procedural rules, including submission deadlines that may interact with the statutory prescriptive period.

---

Conclusion

The reckoning point of the prescriptive period to claim against the Assurance Fund is crucial and varies based on the circumstances of each case. Claimants must carefully assess:

1. The date of registration of the title.
2. The date of discovery of fraud.
3. The date of finality of a judicial decision invalidating the title.
4. Any interruptions to prescription due to ongoing possession or other equitable considerations.

By adhering to these principles, claimants can ensure their rights are properly preserved while respecting the Assurance Fund's role in the Torrens System of land registration.