reconveyance based on an implied trust prescribes in 10 years except when the plaintiff as real owner is in

possession of the property. If a person claiming to be its owner is in actual possession of the property, the right to
seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property does not prescribe.26

Here, it is undisputed that respondents are occupying the whole property, which necessarily includes the
additional two hectares of land in question. Considering that the period to file an action for reconveyance prescribes
in 10 years from the date of registration of the deed or the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the
property, and since petitioners filed their complaint only on September 22, 1999 or around 37 years after the
registration of TCT No. T-1220 in the name of Ebro, the action for reconveyance has already prescribed.27

Two separate motions for reconsideration were filed on behalf of the petitioners, one filed by Atty. Flores and
another filed by Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Edgardo Palay. The two motions were denied by the CA in its Resolution
dated February 11, 2014, for failure to raise any new or substantial ground or reason calling for the reversal of the
court's findings.28

On March 5, 2014, petitioners, through Atty. Flores, filed a Verified Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule
4529 before this Court which was docketed as G.R. No. 211309. The petition included a verification and certification of
non-forum shopping executed by Dagot, Jr. Alangadi, and Dalojo. Ebuenga who passed away on April 26, 2010, is
survived by her spouse Danilo Ebuenga and her siblings, whose whereabouts are unknown. In a Resolution30 dated
March 26, 2014, the Court resolved to require respondents to file a Comment thereon, not a Motion to Dismiss, within
10 days from notice. Respondents filed a Comment dated June 2, 2014.31

Meanwhile, on March 12, 2014, Atty. Peneyra also filed a Motion for Extension to file a Petition for Review
on Certiorari32 on behalf of the petitioners, docketed as G.R. No. 211957. The Petition was eventually filed on April
11, 2014, within the reglementary period, but notably without proof of service to the adverse party and without
explanation why service was not done personally. Hence, the Court, in the Resolution33 dated June 11, 2014,
resolved to consolidate G.R. No. 211309 with G.R. No. 211957, among others, and required:

1. Respondent to file COMMENT thereon, not a motion to dismiss, within ten days from notice; and

2. Petitioners to FULLY COMPLY with the Rules by submitting within five (5) days from notice (a) a proof
of personal service on the counsel for private respondents in accordance with Section 5 (d), Rule 56 in
relation to Section 13, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, as amended, (b) a proper
verification and valid certification of non-forum shopping in accordance with Section 1, Rule 45 in
relation to Sections 4 and 5, Rule 7 of the Rules, since the attached verification and certification was
signed by Marcial Dagot, Jr. without proof of authority to sign for co-petitioners, and (c) written
explanation required under Section 11, Rule 13 in relation to Section 3, Rule 45 and Section(d), Rule 56
of the Rules.34

In the Resolution35 dated July 18, 2014, the Court noted the following: (1) petitioners' manifestation and
submission dated March 19, 2014, submitting a verified declaration relative to the soft copies of the petition and its
annexes as well as the compact disk in G.R. No. 211309 and (2) respondents' Comment dated June 2, 2014 on the
petition for review on certiorari in G.R. No. 211309 in compliance with the Resolution dated March 26, 2014.

The petitioners, through Atty. Flores, filed a Manifestation with Motion for Leave to Reply36 dated September 22,
2014. Attached to the Manifestation were the affidavit of petitioner Dagot, Jr. and the Reply37 to respondents'
Comment dated June 2, 2014.

In Dagot, Jr.'s Affidavit38 dated August 8, 2014, he stated that he found out on August 5, 2014 that his former
counsel, Atty. Peneyra, filed the petition in G.R. No. 211957 on their behalf. However, Dagot, Jr. claimed that as early
as May 2012, they had already informed Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay of their desire to dispense with their services
as evidenced by the attached copies of the petitioners' letters to Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay, both
sent via registered mail on May 4, 2012. Dagot, Jr. further declared that the filing of the petition in G.R. No. 211957
was without their authority, and the signature over the printed name "Marcial Dagot, Jr." in the
Verification/Certification page of G.R. No. 211957 is not his; and he did not appear before Atty. Palay on April 11,
2014 for notarization of the Verification and Certification page.39

Through a Manifestation40 dated August 18, 2014, the counsel for the respondents claimed that they received
only the petition for review dated February 27, 2014 filed by Atty. Flores, and that the petition for review dated April 8,
2014 filed by Atty. Peneyra lacked a verification and certification of non-forum shopping. Thus, the petition filed by
Atty. Peneyra was patently defective since there was no verification and certification against non-forum shopping and
for having been filed out of time. Nonetheless, respondents filed a Comment on the petition filed by Atty. Flores.

This Court, in a Resolution41 dated January 28, 2015, noted and granted the petitioners' Manifestation with
Motion For Leave to File a Reply to the Comment on the Petition for Review on Certiorari in G.R. No. 211309. The
Court also noted petitioners' Reply42 and respondents' Manifestation43 dated August 18, 2014. The Court resolved to
await the compliance of petitioners in G.R. No. 211957 with the Resolution dated June 11, 2014 requiring them to
submit: (a) a proof of personal service of the petition on the counsel for respondents; (b) a proper verification of
petition and certification on non-forum shopping; and (c) a written explanation why service was not done personally.
Notably, there was no indication that both Resolutions dated June 11, 2014 and January 28, 2015, respectively, were
sent to Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay. However, the Court has repeatedly referred to these resolutions and reiterated
such orders in succeeding issuances.

In a Resolution44 dated September 9, 2015, the Court required Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay to comment on the
affidavit of Dagot, Jr. In another Resolution45 dated June 15, 2016, Atty. Peneyra was also required to (a) show cause
why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for failure to file the required documents as mentioned in the Court's
Resolution dated June 11, 2014 and (b) to comply with the June 11, 2014 Resolution within 10 days from notice.

Dagot, Jr., through Atty. Flores, filed a Sinumpaang Salaysay46 dated August 26, 2015 wherein he reiterated his
statements in his August 8, 2014 Affidavit and also prayed that: (a) Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay be required to show
cause why they should not be disciplined; (b) G.R. No. 211957 be expunged from the docket; (c) Atty. Peneyra and
Atty. Palay be cited in contempt of court; (d) Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay be declared guilty of unprofessional
conduct; and (e) corresponding administrative penalties be imposed. The Sinumpaang Salaysay was attached to the
petitioners' Manifestation with Omnibus Motion47 dated September 21, 2015. The Court noted the foregoing
Manifestation with Omnibus Motion filed by the respondents and also required Atty. Peneyra and Atty. Palay to show
cause why they should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt.48

Atty. Palay filed a Manifestation49 dated December 19, 2016 stating that he is not the principal counsel of the
petitioners and has no lawyer-client relationship with them. Worried that the pleadings will be denied on the ground
that Atty. Peneyra lacked the Mandatory Continuing Legal Education compliance, Atty. Peneyra allegedly requested
Atty. Palay to sign the pleadings with him. Atty. Peneyra, in a Comment50 dated January 4, 2017, recounted the
history of his professional relationship with the petitioners and the filing of the instant case. He claimed that he did not
know that petitioners were consulting another lawyer in Pasig City; that his services were never terminated; that he
was never asked to desist from appearing as their counsel; and that he also did not know of petitioners' intent to
terminate his legal services. Atty. Peneyra maintained that he prepared the petition for review on certiorari and
discussed the same with Dagot, Jr. Thereafter, Atty. Peneyra instructed Dagot, Jr. to sign the verification and
certification against non-forum shopping and then have it notarized by Atty. Palay.

In the Resolution51 dated December 13, 2017, We resolved to impose upon Atty. Peneyra a fine of PHP 1,000.00
for non-compliance with the Show Cause Resolution dated June 15, 2016 and directed him to comply with the
Resolution of June 11, 2014. Atty. Peneyra paid the fine on April 16, 2018, as evidenced by Official Receipt No.
0205399-SC-8EP. 52 He also filed a Manifestation/Explanation with Compliance53 dated March 9, 2018, stating that
(awÞhi(

he refused to furnish Atty. Flores a copy of the pleadings because he does not consider Atty. Flores a party in the
instant case, and that he has never withdrawn and will never withdraw from the present case.

In a Resolution54 dated June 18, 2018, We required Atty. Peneyra to fully comply with the Resolution dated June
11, 2014. Considering his failure to comply, the Court resolved in a Resolution55 dated March 25, 2019 to require Atty.
Peneyra to (a) show cause why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with or held in contempt for such failure and (b)
comply with the June 11, 2014 Resolution by submitting the required compliance within 10 days from notice hereof.
In a Resolution dated June 22, 2020, the Court once again resolved to impose upon Atty. Peneyra a fine of PHP
1,000.00 and to require said counsel to comply with the Resolution56 dated June 11, 2014 within 10 days from notice.

In the September 14, 2022 Resolution,57 this Court noted that the copy of the Resolution dated June 22, 2020
sent to Atty. Flores, counsel for petitioners, was returned to the Court unserved with postal notation "RTS no one to
receive." The certification dated March 8, 2022 issued by the Fiscal Management and Budget Office of this Court also
stated that there is no record of payment made by Atty. Peneyra in the amount of PHP 1,000.00 for court fine
imposed in the June 22, 2020 Resolution. Thus, the Court resolved to (a) impose upon Atty. Peneyra the increased
fine in the amount of PHP 5,000.00 payable to this Court within 10 days from notice, or suffer a penalty of
imprisonment of five days if said fine is not paid within the said period; and (b) require Atty. Peneyra to comply with
the Resolution dated June 11, 2014 within 10 days from notice hereof.