Practice question
A fully competent owner learns in 2015 that an innocent purchaser has already registered a protected title after a usurper’s fraud. The owner has a complete Fund cause of action, but files only in 2023. No suspension, interruption, or disability applies. The owner argues that a separate insolvency judgment obtained against the usurper in 2022 restarted the period. Which answer is correct?
- The action is timely because insolvency always starts a new six years.
- The action is timely because Fund claims never prescribe after fraud.
- The action is timely because death of any unrelated owner interrupts prescription.
- The action is governed by the one-year decree-review period instead.
- The action is barred: more than six years passed after the stipulated accrual, and the later insolvency judgment does not restart that period.
Legal references
- https://lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1978/pd_1529_1978.html — PD1529, section102: six years, survival, and disability proviso.
- https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2018/jul2018/gr_224678_2018.html — Spouses Stilianopoulos v Register of Deeds for Legazpi City, GR224678, July3 2018, main opinion: accrual and actual knowledge in fraudulent-registration claims.
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.