Você está na página 1de 22

b.

3 NATURE OF RIGHT OF CO-OWNER Bailons because they are co-owners of the


BEFORE PARTITION original sellers. But, an action to recover
may be barred by laches. CA held the
Case 1: BAILON-CASILAO V. CA (1988) Bailons guilty of laches and dismissed their
Facts: complaint
There is a parcel of land in the names of the
Bailons (Rosalia, Gaudencio, Sabina Issue:
Bernabe, Nenita and Delia) as co-owners, Rights of co-owner
each with a 1/6 share. Prescription
Gaudencio and Nenita are now dead, Applicability of the doctrine of laches
(Nenita being represented in this case by
her children) o Bernabe went to China and Ratio:
had not been heard from since It appears Initially, a determination of the effect of a
that Rosalia and Gaudencio sold a portion sale by one or more co-owners of the entire
of the land to Donato Delgado. Rosalia property held in common without the
alone, then sold the remainder of the land to consent of all the co-owners and of the
Ponciana Aresgado de Lanuza. appropriate remedy of the aggrieved co-
On the same date, Lanuza acquired from owners is required.
Delgado land which the Delgado had earlier The rights of a co-owner of a certain
acquired from Rosalia and Gaudencio. property are clearly specified in NCC
Husband John Lanuza, acting under a 493:
special power of attorney given by his wife, Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full
Ponciana, sold the two parcels of land to ownership of his part and of the acts and
Celestino Afable, Sr. In all these transfers, it benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
was stated in the deeds of sale that the land therefore alienate assign or mortgage it and
was not registered under the provisions of even substitute another person in its
Act No. 496 when the fact is that it is. o It enjoyment, except when personal rights are
appears that the land had been involved. But the effect of the alienation or
successively declared for taxation first, in mortgage, with respect to the co-owners,
the name of Ciriaca Dellamas, mother of the shall be limited to the portion which may be
co-owners, then in the name of Rosalia allotted to him in the division upon the
Bailon, then in that of Donato Delgado, then termination of the co-ownership.
in Ponciana de Lanuza's name, and finally SC has already ruled in other cases that
in the name of Celestino Afable, Sr. even if a co-owner sells the whole property
The petitioners in this case, the Bailons, as his, the sale will affect only his own share
filed a case for recovery of property against but not those of the other co-owners who
Celestino Afable. In his answer, Afable did not consent to the sale.
claimed that he had acquired the land in By virtue of the sales made by Rosalia and
question through prescription and said that Gaudencio, which are valid with respect to
the Bailons are guilty of laches. their proportionate shares, and the
LC declared Afable co-owner because he subsequent transfers which culminated in
validly bought 2/6 of the land (the shares of the sale to private respondent Celestino
Rosalia and Gaudencio) CA affirmed. Afable, Afable thereby became a co-owner
Prescription does not apply against the of the disputed parcel of land Since a co-

The Other Side EH 407 1


A.Y. 2017-2018
owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, Re: Argument of Bailons that as to the
a sale of the entire property by one co- children who represent their deceased
owner without the consent of the other co- mother, Nenita, prescription lies
owners is not null and void. It is argued, that as to the children who are
However, only the rights of the co-owner- not the registered co-owners but merely
seller are transferred, thereby making the represent their deceased mother,
buyer a co-owner of the property. prescription lies. (citing Pasion v. Pasion:
Re: Proper action "the imprescriptibility of a Torrens title can
The proper action in cases like this is not for only be invoked by the person in whose
the nullification of the sale or for the name the title is registered" and that 'one
recovery of possession but the division of who is not the registered owner of a parcel
the common property. Neither recovery of of land cannot invoke imprescriptibility of
possession nor restitution can be granted action to claim.'
since the buyers are legitimate possessors Reliance on the previous case is wrong.
in joint ownership of the common property The ruling there applies only against
claimed. transferees other than direct issues or heirs
Re: Prescription or to complete strangers. The reason for
Here, prescription cannot be invoked. that is: if prescription is unavailing against
Pursuant to NCC 494, no co-owner shall be the registered owner, it must be equally
obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Such unavailing against the owner's hereditary
co-owner may demand at anytime the successors, because they merely step into
partition of the thing owned in common, the shoes of the decedent
insofar as his share is concerned. Re: Laches
In Budiong v. Bondoc , SC has interpreted Laches is also unavailing as a shield
that provision to mean that the action for against the action of petitioners Bailon.
partition is imprescriptible or cannot be Laches is defined as the failure or neglect,
barred by prescription. For NCC 494 for an unreasonable length of time to do that
explicitly declares: No prescription shall lie which by exercising due diligence could or
in favor of a co-owner or co- heir so long as should have been done earlier; it is
he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co- negligence or omission to assert a right
ownership. within a reasonable time warranting a
Also, the disputed parcel of land being presumption that the party entitled to assert
registered under the Torrens System, the it either has abandoned it or declined to
express provision of Act No. 496 that ªno assert it.
title to registered land in derogation to that While there was delay in asserting the
of the registered owner shall be acquired by Bailon's rights, such delay was not attended
prescription or adverse possessionº is with any knowledge of the sale nor with any
applicable. opportunity to bring a suit. In the first place,
Prescription will not lie in favor of Afable as the Bailons had no notice of the sale made
against the Bailons who remain the by their eldest sister. In the second place,
registered owners of the parcel of land. they were not afforded an opportunity to
bring suit because they were kept in the
dark about the transactions entered into by
their sister. It was only when Delia returned

The Other Side EH 407 2


A.Y. 2017-2018
that she found out about the sales and et al., Defendants-Appellants," affirming the
immediately, she and her siblings filed the decision of the Court of First Instance of
present action for recovery of property. Laguna, Branch I at Biñan.
The third element of laches is absent. There
was no lack of knowledge. It is actually FACTS:
Afable who is guilty of bad faith in
purchasing the property as he knew that the Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega are
property was coowned by six persons and husband and wife who acquired adjacent
yet, there were only two signatories to the lots 1495, 4545, and 1496 of the Calamba
deeds of sale and no special authorization Friar Land Estate situated in Calamba,
to self was granted to the two sellers by the Laguna. These lots are covered by
other co-owners. certificates of title issued in the name od
A person dealing with a registered land has "Flaviano Moreto, married to Monica
a right to rely upon the face of the Torrens Maniega."
certificate of title and to dispense with the
need of inquiring further, except when the The Sps. Flaviano and Moniga have six (6)
party concerned has actual knowledge of children: Ursulo, Marta, La Paz, Alipio,
facts and circumstances that would impel a Pablo, and Leandro. Where the first 5
reasonably cautions man to make such siblings (except Leandro) died (1959, 1938,
inquiry. 1954, 1943, and 1942 respectively)
Petition was Granted. intestate, leaving plaintiffs herein as heirs.

b.4: RIGHT TO DEMAND PARTITION On May 6, 1946, Monicq Maniega died


intestate in Calamba Laguna.
Case 2: CORNELIO PAMPLONA alias
GEMINIANO PAMPLONA and APOLONIA On July 30, 1952, or more than six (6) years
ONTE, petitioners, vs. VIVENCIO after the death of his wife Monica Maniega,
MORETO, VICTOR MORETO, ELIGIO Flaviano Moreto, without the consent of the
MORETO, MARCELO MORETO, heirs of his said deceased wife Monica, and
PAULINA MORETO, ROSARIO MORETO, before any liquidation of the conjugal
MARTA MORETO, SEVERINA MENDOZA, partnership of Monica and Flaviano could
PABLO MENDOZA, LAZARO MENDOZA, be effected, executed in favor of Geminiano
VICTORIA TUIZA, JOSEFINA MORETO, Pamplona, married to defendant Apolonia
LEANDRO MORETO and LORENZO Onte, the deed of absolute sale covering lot
MENDOZA, respondents. No. 1495 for P900.00. The deed of sale
contained a description of lot No. 1495 as
NOTE: petitioners herein are defendants in having an area of 781 square meters and
the original filing of the case and covered by transfer certificate of title No.
respondents are plaintiffs. 14570 issued in the name of Flaviano
Moreto, married to Monica Maniega,
This is a petition for certiorari by way of although the lot was acquired during their
appeal from the decision of the Court of marriage. As a result of the sale, the said
Appeals entitled "Vivencio Moreto, et al., certificate of title was cancelled and a new
Plaintiff-Appellees vs. Cornelio Pamplona, transfer certificate of title No. T-5671 was

The Other Side EH 407 3


A.Y. 2017-2018
issued in the name of Geminiano Pamplona partnership of Flaviano and his deceased
married to Apolonia Onte wife; and

After the execution of the above-mentioned 2. the latter was already dead when the sale
deed of sale, the spouses Geminiano was executed without the consent of the
Pamplona and Apolonia Onte constructed plaintiffs who are the heirs of Monica.
their house on the eastern part of lot 1496
as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, The spouses Geminiano Pamplona and
pointed to it as the land which he sold to Apolonia Onte refused to vacate the
Geminiano Pamplona. Shortly thereafter, premises occupied by them and hence, this
Rafael Pamplona, son of the spouses suit was instituted by the heirs of Monica
Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte, Maniega seeking for:
also built his house within lot 1496 about 1. the declaration of the nullity of the deed
one meter from its boundary with the of sale of July 30, 1952 above-mentioned as
adjoining lot. regards one half of the property subject
matter of said deed;
The vendor Flaviano Moreto and the 2. to declare the plaintiffs as the rightful
vendee Geminiano Pamplona thought all owners of the other half of said lot;
the time that the portion of 781 square 3. to allow the plaintiffs to redeem the one-
meters which was the subject matter of their half portion thereof sold to the defendants
sale transaction was No. 1495 and so lot 'After payment of the other half of the
No. 1495 appears to be the subject matter purchase price';
in the deed of sale although the fact is that 4. to order the defendants to vacate the
the said portion sold thought of by the portions occupied by them;
parties to be lot No. 1495 is a part of lot No. 5. to order the defendants to pay actual and
1496. moral damages and attorney's fees to the
plaintiffs;
From 1956 to 1960, the spouses Geminiano 6. to order the defendants to pay plaintiffs
Pamplona and Apolonio Onte enlarged their P120.00 a year from August 1958 until they
house and they even constructed a piggery have vacated the premises occupied by
corral at the back of their said house about them for the use and occupancy of the
one and one-half meters from the eastern same.
boundary of lot 1496.
The defendants claim that the sale made by
On August 12, 1956, Flaviano Moreto died Flaviano Moreto in their favor is valid as the
intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs demanded lot sold is registered in the name of Flaviano
on the defendants to vacate the premises Moreto and they are purchasers believing in
where they had their house and piggery on good faith that the vendor was the sole
the ground that: owner of the lot sold.

1. Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the After a relocation of lots 1495, 1496 and
lot which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona 4545 made by agreement of the parties, it
as the same belongs to the conjugal was found out that there was mutual error
between Flaviano Moreto and the

The Other Side EH 407 4


A.Y. 2017-2018
defendants in the execution of the deed of on July 25, 1961, or a period of over nine
sale because while the said deed recited (9) years. And during said period, the
that the lot sold is lot No. 1495, the real private respondents who are the heirs of
intention of the parties is that it was a Monica Maniega as well as of Flaviano
portion consisting of 781 square meters of Moreto who also died intestate on August
lot No. 1496 which was the subject matter of 12, 1956, lived as neighbors to the
their sale transaction. petitioners- vendees, yet lifted no finger to
question the occupation, possession and
Ruling of the Trial Court: ownership of the land purchased by the
Pamplonas, so SC rule that private
1. Rendered judgment for the plaintiffs respondents are in estoppel by laches to
pertaining to the eastern portion of Lot 1496 claim half of the property in dispute as null
covering ara of 781 sq. m. Null and void as and void. Estoppel by laches is a rule of
regards the 390.5 sq. m. Of which plaintiffs equity which bars a claimant from
are hereby decalred the rightful owners and presenting his claim when, by reason of
entitled to its possession abandonment and negligence, he allowed a
2. Sale is ordered valid with respect to the long time to elapse without presenting the
eastern 1/2 of 1781 sq. m. Of lot 1496, the same. (International Banking Corporation
defendants shall be entitled to a certificate vs. Yared, 59 Phil. 92)
of title covering said portion and Transfer
Certificate of Title No. 9843 of the office of SC ruled that at the time of the sale in 1952,
the Register of Deeds of Laguna shall be the conjugal partnership was already
cancelled accordingly and new titles issued dissolved six years before and therefore,
to the plaintiffs and to the defendants the estate became a co-ownership between
covering their respective portions. Flaviano Moreto, the surviving husband,
and the heirs of his deceased wife, Monica
ISSUE: Maniega. Article 493 of the New Civil Code
Whether under the facts and circumstances is applicable and it provides as follows:
duly established by the evidence, petitioners
are entitled to the full ownership of the "Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full
property in litigation, or only one-half of the ownership of his part and of the fruits and
same. benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it,
RULING: and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are
Petitioners are entitled to the full ownership involved. But the effect of the alienation or
of the property. the mortgage, with respect to the co-
owners, shall be limited to the portion which
The houses of the spouses Cornelio may be allotted to him in the division upon
Pamplona and Apolonia Onte as well as the termination of the co-ownership."
that of their son Rafael Pamplona, including
the concrete piggery coral adjacent thereto, Petitioners are declared owners in full
stood on the land from 1952 up to the filing ownership of the 781 sq. meters at the
of the complaint by the private respondents eastern portion of Lot 1496 now occupied

The Other Side EH 407 5


A.Y. 2017-2018
by said petitioners and whereon their Owned the portion of land erroneously
houses and piggery coral stand. included in the TCT in the name of
Regalado
The Register of Deeds of Laguna is hereby Had occupied the lot as a residential
ordered to segregate the area of 781 sq. dwelling ever since their purchase of it from
meters from Certificate of Title No. 9843 the Distajos
and to issue a new Transfer Certificate of Had declared the land for tax purposes and
Title to the petitioners covering the paid the corresponding taxes
segregated area of 781 sq. meters. Presented the Deed of Absolute Sale
executed between Soledad and Salome,
Case 3: DEL CAMPO V. CA Deed of Mortgage and Deed of Discharge of
Mortgage signed by Regalado and Deed of
FACTS: Absolute sale showing their purchaseThe
trial court dismissed the complaint.
The Bornales (Salome, Consorcia, Alfredo, Salome could alienate her pro-indivisio
Maria, Rosalia, Jose, Quirico and Julita) share but could not have validly sold an
were the original co-owners of a lot in undivided portion of the lot by metes and
Capiz. Salome had sold her 4/16 share to bounds to Soledad, from whom the Del
Daynolo with Salome, Consorcia and Campos had derived their title.
Alfredo signing the Deed of Absolute Sale,
which had described the metes and bounds Del Campos could not have a better right to
of the property. Daynolo immediately took the property even if they were in physical
possession and mortgaged the portion to possession and had declared for tax
Regalado.Simplicio Distajo, heir of Daynolo, purposes because mere possession cannot
had paid the mortgaged debt and redeem defeat the right of Regalado, who had a
the lot from Regalado, who executed a Torrens title. CA had affirmed the decision.
Deed of Discharge of Mortgage in favor of
Daynolo’s heirs (Simplicio Distajo, Rafael ISSUES: W/N a sale by a co-owner of a
Distajo and Teresita Distajo). They sold the physical portion of an undivided property
redeemed portion to the spouses Del held in common is valid?
Campo and Quiachon. Lower courts reliance on the doctrine that
mere possession cannot defeat the right of
Meanwhile, Regalado had cause the a holder of a registered Torrens title over
reconstitution of the OCT initially reflecting property is misplaced, considering that
the share of the Bornales but the title was petitioners were deprived of their dominical
later transferred to Regalado, who had the rights over the said lot through fraud and
entire property subdivided and titled into with evident bad faith on the part of
smaller lots. Regalado. Failure and intentional omission
to disclose the fact of actual physical
The spouses Del Campo brought this possession by another person during
complaint for the repartition, resurvey and registration proceedings constitutes actual
reconveyance of lot against the heirs of fraud. Likewise, it is fraud to knowingly omit
Regalado (deceased). or conceal a fact, upon which benefit is
obtained to the prejudice of a third

The Other Side EH 407 6


A.Y. 2017-2018
person.[17] In this case, we are convinced partition and damages. The RTC dismissed
that Regalado knew of the fact that he did the case and decided that the petitioners
not have a title to the entire lot and could were not able to prove their filiation to
not, therefore, have validly registered the Buenaventura Cristobal.
same in his name alone because he was
aware of petitioners possession of the The CA affirmed the decision of the RTC on
subject portion as well as the sale between another ground. They decided that while
Salome and Soledad. petitioners were able to prove filiation to the
WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. decedent, their action for the annulment of
The assailed decision of the Court of the deed of partition was already barred by
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 30438 is laches.
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The parties
are directed to cause a SURVEY for exact Issue:
determination of their respective portions in
Lot 162-C-6. Transfer Certificate of Title No. Whether or not petitioner’s action is proper
14566 is declared CANCELLED and the in lieu of proof of filiation, prescription and
Register of Deeds of Capiz is ordered to laches
ISSUE a new title in accordance with said
survey, upon finality of this decision. Held:

2. Right to Demand Partition The Supreme Court held that the petitioners
i. Partition were able to prove their filiation to
Buenaventura Cristobal. The petitioners
Case 4: Cruz v. Cristobal were able to present evidence in form of
GR No 140422 witness testimonies while the respondents
August 7, 2006 did not adduce any evidence to refute the
claims of petitioners. The foregoing
Facts: evidence was able to convince the Supreme
Court that petitioners are indeed the
Petitioners are siblings and are the children children of Buenaventura Cristobal during
of Buenaventura Cristobal and her first wife, his first marriage.
while the respondents are siblings and are
also children of Buenaventura Cristobal and As to the validity of the partition, the
her second wife. Buenaventura Cristobal Supreme Court held that Section 1 of Rule
died intestate in 1930 while leaving a parcel 74 of the Rules of Court will apply. It
of land in San Juan, Manila. In 1994, provides that no extrajudicial settlement
petitioner Eliza found out that the shall be binding upon any person who
respondents had executed an extrajudicial has not participated therein or had no
partition over the subject property and notice thereof. The partition by the
transferred the title of the same to their respondents does not bind the petitioners
names. as petitioners were excluded.

They filed a complaint before the RTC On the issue of prescription, the Supreme
seeking the annulment of the deed of Court held that Article 494 of the New Civil

The Other Side EH 407 7


A.Y. 2017-2018
Code which states that “no co-owner shall July 28, 1969- the children of Benjamin filed
be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. a Complaint for recovery against their uncle,
Such co-owner may demand at anytime the Tirso. They alleged that the share of their
partition of the thing owned in common, father over the F4 property was entrusted to
insofar as his share is concerned. xxx No their uncle but he never surrendered the
prescription shall lie in favour of a co-owner property when they demanded for it.
or co-heirs as long as he expressly or
impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.” The Tirso countered that it was never entrusted
court interpreted this provision to mean that to him, the portion his nieces and nephews
the action for partition is imprescriptible claimed are actually Soledad’s (sister) share
and cannot be barred by prescription. which she swapped with another parcel of
land (f7) which is where she is residing now.
Finally on the issue of laches, the court held
that even if the partition happened in 1948, Tirso then filed another Complaint for
petitioner only found out about the partition Partition for F1-F8 and S1-S4 because he
sometime in 1994. They filed a petition in alleged that the initial partition made by his
the barangay to settle their claim on 1995, father was null and void. It was because F6-
and they filed a complaint to the RTC on F8 was not partitioned therefore he was
March 1995. Moreover, absent any deprived of his legitime. He also alleged that
compelling reason, the court should not S-1 to S-4 are not paraphernal of his
apply the doctrine of laches to prejudice or father’s second wife
defeat the rights of the owner. The defendants said that F6 was actually
acquired during the 2nd marriage and F7
and F8 was actually their father’s exclusive
Case 5: MONTEROSO V CA properties. S-1 was acquired by her through
Facts: a homestead patent, Parcel S-2 through
adverse possession, and Parcels S-3 and
Fabian Monteroso married twice, sired 8 S-4 by purchase.
children, 4 from each wife. Soledad Cagampang also contended that
First wife (died)- Soledad, Reygula, the property she is currently possessing
Benjamin, Tirso belongs to her alone.
Second wife- Florenda, Reynato, Alberto,
Fabian Jr. RTC Decisions
July 22, 1985- dismissed case because of
After the death of his 1st wife and before the no cause of action
marriage to his 2nd wife, he filed an intestate After a motion for reconsideration, a new
proceeding for the properties of his 1st wife. judge took over the case and on June 9,
Parcels covered: F1-F3, half of F5 to Don 1987, RTC reversed the decision and
Fabian and F4 and half of F5 to the 4 ordered Tirso to deliver the lot to his
children of his 1st wife. There was no nephews and nieces. The RTC also ordered
mention of how F6 to F8 was partitioned. Soledad to give the property she is currently
possessing to Reygula which was found out
On his 2nd marriage, he acquired an to be the actual owner. Reygula should also
additional 4 lots (S-1, s-2, S-3 and S-4). give up her possession of the property she

The Other Side EH 407 8


A.Y. 2017-2018
is currently residing to the heirs of Benjamin Soledad Cagampang that Tirso and the
which are the rightful owners. others are not, the proper remedy of the
compulsory heirs to get their legitime. An
The F1- F8 was declared to be properties of action for partition is at once an action for
Don Fabian on his first marriage so the declaration of co-ownership and for
courts portioned ½ of each to be divided in segregation and conveyance of a
favor of the children of his 1st marriage and determinate portion of the properties
the other half to be divided in nine parts, 1/9 involved.
to his second wife and 1/8 each to his eight
children. Sec. 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court
pertinently provides:
S1-S4 was declared to be properties of Don
Fabian to his second marriage, hence ½ of SECTION 1. Complaint in action for partition
the properties are owned by the 2nd wife and of real estate. –– A person having the right
the other half are portioned into 1/8 for each to compel the partition of real estate may do
of his children. so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in
his complaint the nature and extent of his
CA Ruling- affirmed the decision of the title and an adequate description of the real
RTC. estate of which partition is demanded and
joining as defendants all other persons
interested in the property.

ISSUES: Tirso has the right to compel partition of the


properties comprising the intestate estate of
There were 7 issues but we focus on the Don Fabian as a measure to get his
issue 4th- 5th issues which is the issue about hereditary share. Before partition and
the partition. eventual distribution of Don Fabian’s
4- Whether the [CA] committed reversible intestate estate, a regime of co-ownership
error in upholding partition as the proper among the compulsory heirs existed over
remedy of private respondent Tirso the undivided estate of Don Fabian. Being a
Monteroso to recover the properties sold by co-owner of that intestate estate, Tirso’s
Fabian Monteroso, Sr. to Soledad D. right over a share thereof is imprescriptible.
Monteroso de Cagampang when co-
ownership is not pleaded as theory in the 5th issue- Art. 1141 of the Civil Code
Complaint. applies; thus, Tirso has at the very least 10
5- Whether the [CA] committed reversible years and at the most 30 years to file the
error in holding that the cause of action of appropriate action in court. The records
private respondent Tirso Monteroso is not show that Tirso’s cause of action has not
barred by extinctive prescription and laches prescribed as he instituted an action for
partition in 1970 or only nine years after the
SC Ruling- considered express repudiation.
4thissue- Since it was expressed by the SC
that Tirso and the rest of the siblings are iii. Prescription
actually co-owners despite the claims of

The Other Side EH 407 9


A.Y. 2017-2018
Case 6: VDA. DEL ALBERTO VS. CA CA reversed decision in favor of Antonio Sr.
(Prescription) and declared him the natural child of
Antonio Alberto. Thus, this petition for
Facts: review was filed.

The case originated from a complaint for Issues:


acknowledgement and partition filed on
Sept. 8, 1960 by herein respondents, WON decision of CA is already barred by
Antonio Alberto Jr. through her mother, prior judgement during the 1953 intestate
Andrea Jongco against herein petitioners. proceedings for the settlement of the
In the said complaint, it was alleged that deceased Antonio.
Antonio Alberto and Andrea Jongco lived
together as husband and wife in 1941 and Ruling:
as a result, he (Antonio Jr. was born). At the
time of Antonio Jr.’s birth, both of his Yes. Insolvency proceedings and settlement
parents were single and no legal of a decedent’s estate are both proceedings
impediment to marry each other. They in rem which are binding against the whole
continued to live together until 1944 when world. All persons having interest in the
they decided to separate. Subsequently, subject matter involved, whether they were
Antonio Alberto married Natividad del notified or not, are equally bound. It was
Rosario and they have had 2 children. ruled further that a final order of distribution
Although his parents are separated, his of the estate of a deceased person vests
father continued to support him and the title to the land of the estate in the
recognized him as his child. distributees; and that the only instance
When his father died in 1949, without prior where a party interested in a probate
notice to him, petitioner Natividad del proceeding may have a final liquidation set
Rosario instituted an intestate proceeding aside is when he is left out by reason of
for the estate of his father. In the said circumstances beyond his control or through
intestate proceedings, petitioners mistake or inadvertence not imputable to
deliberately omitted him as one of the heirs negligence.
and for this reason they succeeded in
having the properties of the deceased father In this case, however, the action for the
adjudicated and partitioned among respondents to file has already prescribed
themselves (petitioners) in November 9, as provided in Article 1100 of the Civil Code
1953. which states that “The action for rescission
Antonio prays that the petitioners on account of lesion shall prescribe after
acknowledge him as the natural child of four years from the time the partition was
Antonio Alberto and that his one-fourth made.” The intestate proceeding was
share be turned over to him. terminated on November 9, 1953 and it was
The Trial court dismissed the complaint only in September 8, 1960 (almost 7 years)
because cause of action is already barred that herein respondents objected.
by prior judgement (on 1953 decision) and
by statute of limitations. Moreover, private respondent, as a minor,
cannot claim exemption from the effects of

The Other Side EH 407 10


A.Y. 2017-2018
prescription on the plea of minority because of land. The spouses died intestate and
under Article 1108, it is stated that were survived by three children: Victorina,
prescription, both acquisitive and extinctive, Sebastian and Petitioner Maria. Sebastian
runs against minors and other incapacitated died without any issue and Victorina died
persons who have parents, guardians or intestate, survived by her only daughter
other legal representatives. In this case, it Respondent Cristina Bicarme.
was his mother who filed the complaint for
him. Respondent Cristina, claiming she owns ½
Respondents are not only barred by of the two parcels of land instituted this
prescription but also by laches. Laches is action for partition because petitioner Maria
the failure or neglect, for an unreasonable refused to share with her the yearly fruits of
and unexplained length of time, to do that the parcels of land.
which by exercising due diligence, could or
should have been done earlier. The Petitioner claims that she acquired these
negligence or omission to assert a right lands in question from the deceased
within a reasonable time, warrants a spouses Placido Bidaya and Margarita Bose
presumption that the party entitled to assert and claims to be the absolute owner
it either has abandoned it or declined to thereof.
assert it.
There appears to be no explanation for the In ruling Maria and Cristina to be co-heirs,
surprising delay in the filing of the complaint the trial court relied on a provision
in the case at bar except perhaps, the fact separately stated in three deeds of sale
that during the lifetime of the deceased executed by Maria which read “That I am
Antonio Alberto, private respondents were the sole and absolute owner over the above
receiving support until the latter died in describe cornland having acquired the same
1949; but thereafter, they allowed more than by inheritance from my late father Juan
ten years to elapse or until September 8, Bicarme”
1960 before they filed the present action to
assert their rights despite Andrea Jongco's Having established Cristina’s co ownership
allegation that they stopped receiving rights, Maria insists that Cristina’s rights are
support after Alberto, Sr.'s death. barred by prescription.

CA’s decision was reversed. Decision of Issue: W/N prescription lies in the case
RTC was reinstated. at bar

CASE 7: MARIA BICARME v. CA and Held:


CRISTINA BICARME
GR L-51914 No, it is correct to say that possession by
June 6, 1990 one co-owner (trustee) is not deemed
adverse to others. It is however, not correct
Facts: to say that by virtue of the imprescriptibility
of an action for partition, prescription as a
Sps. Juan Bicarme and Florencia Bidaya mode of acquiring title, can never be
were the original co owners of two parcels invoked.

The Other Side EH 407 11


A.Y. 2017-2018
PETITION IS DENIED
If a co-owner or co-heir holds the property in
exclusive adverse possession as owner,
asserting sole and exclusive dominion for CASE 8: PANGAN vs. CA
the required period, he can acquire sole title
to it against the co-heirs or co-owners. The FACTS:
imprescriptibility of an action for partition The subject property is a 635 sq. meter lot
cannot thus be inoked when one of the co- owned by Leon Hilario. Petitioners are
owners has possessed the property as Hilario’s grand children thru Silveria
exclusive owner, and for a period sufficient (daughter) and respondent, Teodora Garcia,
to acquire it by prescription. thru Catalina (daughter of Hilario).

In order that a possession may be deemed Petitioners filed an application of title on the
adverse to the cestui que trust, or the other ground of their continuous possession of the
co-owner the following must concur property. There were no oppositors, so the
application was approved.
That he has performed unequivocal acts of
repudiation amounting to an ouster of the Subsequently, respondent claims to have a
cestui que trust or other co-owner right over the property as an heir of Leon
That such positive acts of repudiation have (since her mother is a daughter of Leon).
been made known to the cestui que trust or
other co owners When the case reached the CA, the CA
That the evidence thereon must be clear reversed decision of trial court saying that
and convincing petitioners have not acquired the land thru
acquisitive prescription.
In the present case, a mere silent
possession by a co-owner, his receipt of ISSUE:
rents, fruits or profits from the property, the WON the petitioners have acquired land
erection of buildings and fences and the thru acquisitive prescription
planting of trees thereon, and the payment
of land taxes, cannot serve as proof of HELD:
exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out of
clear, complete and conclusive evidence Petitioners claim that they have acquired
that he exercised acts of possession which acquisitive prescription by possessing and
unequivocally constituted an ouster or paying the taxes of the land. SC said that
deprivation of the rights of the co owner. tax declarations are not conclusive proofs of
ownership. SC said that tac declarations
It follows that neither the doctrine on laches cannot be sole proof because the tax
apply, for absent acquisitive prescription, declaration in their name could have been
the case is not one of ownership, in which done out of convenience for the co-owners.
case the doctrine on imprescriptibility of an
action for partition will apply. Cristina’s right According to the petitioners, there was such
to partition will therefore prosper. repudiation which was admitted by the
private respondent herself Testifying for

The Other Side EH 407 12


A.Y. 2017-2018
herself at the hearing on her opposition in
the registration proceedings, she declared: Adverse possession requires the
concurrence of the following circumstances:
ATTY. CANLAS:
1. That the trustee has performed
Q: After the death of Tomas Pangan, did unequivocal acts amounting to an ouster of
you ask the heirs of Tomas Pangan of your the cestui que trust;
alleged share in the property in question? 2. That such positive acts of repudiation had
been made known to the cestui que trust;
A: Yes, sir. and
3. That the evidence thereon should be
Q: What did they tell you? clear and conclusive.

A: They said that I have no right to a share SC said that the case at bar did not meet all
and they won't give me my share. 3 requirements.

Q: How many years ago did you ask from CASE 9: FANGONIL-HERRERA VS
them? FANGONIL
GR 169356
A: Immediately after the death of their
father. Recit Ready

Q: That was some 20 years ago? The petitioner and respondents are siblings
and heirs to spouses Fongonil. The spouses
A: I do not know how many years ago. owned 7 parcels of land. The spouses sold
a portion of the 6th and 7th parcel of land to 2
Q: And during all that span of more than 20 different buyers with the right to repurchase.
years ago you did not file any action to The spouses died without exercising the
recover your share on the land in question? right to repurchase. As an heir, the
petitioner was able to repurchase the
A: No sir, it was only this time . parcels. The rest of the siblings prayed for
an extrajudicial partition of all 7 parcels but
For title to prescribe in favor of the co- the petitioner did not agree with how parcel
owner, however, there must be a clear 1 was divided and would want to claim sole
showing that he has repudiated the claims ownership on the 6th and 7th parcel having
of the other co-owners and that they have paid the taxes and having actual possession
been categorically advised of the exclusive despite it being under the name of their
claim he is making to the property in father. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of
question. It is only when such unequivocal the respondents saying that the petitioners
notice has been given that the period of were unable to claim adverse possession in
prescription will begin to run against the the concept of an owner where she
other co-owners and ultimately divest them voluntarily executed documents stating that
of their own title if they do not seasonably she was a mere creditor and/or co-owner.
defend it. Furthermore, possession by a co-owner is

The Other Side EH 407 13


A.Y. 2017-2018
like that of a trustee and shall not be made by respondents in parcel 1 and
regarded as adverse to the other co- declaring that parcels 6 & 7 as part of the
owners, but in fact as beneficial to all of estate of their parents, of which the CA
them. Thus, as a rule, prescription does not affirmed.
run in favor of a co-heir or co-owner as long
as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the Issue: WON the petitioner can acquire
co-ownership. ownership for parcels 6 & 7 through
prescription
Facts:
The petitioner and respondents are siblings SC Ruling
and heirs to spouses Fongonil. The spouses
owned 7 parcels of land. The spouses sold On the prescription:
a portion of the 6th parcel to Saguitan with a The SC said that petitioner’s possession of
right to repurchase to Oribello. The 7th parcels 6 and 7 did not ripen into sole and
parcel was sold with a right to repurchase to exclusive ownership thereof. First,
Estacio. The petitioners repurchased the lot prescription applies to adverse, open,
invoking the rights to repurchase as heir continuous, and exclusive possession. In
since their parents died without exercising order that a co-owners’ possession may be
the right. The rest of the siblings made her deemed adverse to the other co-owners, the
following elements must concur:(1) that he
On November 1983, the parties executed a has performed unequivocal acts of
deed of extrajudicial partition. The petitioner repudiation amounting to an ouster of the
contended that she did not want how the other co-owners; (2) that such positive acts
parcel 1 was portioned among them. For of repudiation have been made known to
parcel 6 and 7, the petitioner said she was the other co-owners; and (3) that the
only convinced to sign the partition because evidence thereon must be clear and
of the misrepresentation of one of her convincing. Clearly, petitioner cannot claim
brothers who was a judge. The other adverse possession in the concept of an
children prayed for a partition of the lot and owner where she voluntarily executed
put Marina Fangonil as the administrator documents stating that she was a mere
except the petitioner. The petitioner wanted creditor and/or co-owner. Mere silent
to be the administrator as well as the sole possession by a co-owner; his receipt of
owner of parcel 6 and 7 since she was the rents, fruits or profits from the property; his
one who repurchased as well as alleging erection of buildings and fences and the
that her siblings did not show any initiative planting of trees thereon; and the payment
to reimburse. She was also the one paying of land taxes cannot serve as proofs of
for the taxes and has actual possession of exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out by
the parcels but it was still under the name of clear and convincing evidence that he
their father. It was only after 11 years did exercised acts of possession which
the petitioner execute an affidavit refuting unequivocably constituted an ouster or
the portions pertaining to parcels 6 and 7. deprivation of the rights of the other co-
owners.
The RTC ruled in favor of the respondents, Alternatively, possession by a co-owner is
allowing the original manner of partition like that of a trustee and shall not be

The Other Side EH 407 14


A.Y. 2017-2018
regarded as adverse to the other co- widow, Virginia (Jose died on March 8,
owners, but in fact as beneficial to all of 1970), and their children are the petitioners.
them. Mere actual possession by one will
not give rise to the inference that the The Arceos executed a deed of donation
possession was adverse because a co- inter vivos in favor of Jose. He took
owner is, after all, entitled to possession of personal possession thereof, worked
the property. Thus, as a rule, prescription thereon, and claimed them as owner
does not run in favor of a co-heir or co- thereof.
owner as long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership; and he cannot The Arceos supposedly signed a deed of
acquire by prescription the share of the donation mortis causa revoking the donation
other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation to Jose and giving away the properties in
of the co-ownership. question in favor of all his grandchildren
An action to demand partition among co- including Jose.
owners is imprescriptible, and each co-
owner may demand at any time the Virginia, together with her children, filed with
partition of the common property. the cadastral court an application for
registration. The court denied and
CASE 10: G.R. No. 81401 May 18, 1990 distributed the properties according to the
VIRGINIA FRANCO VDA. DE ARCEO, law on intestate succession.
CARMELITA ARCEO, ZENAIDA ARCEO,
ROMEO ARCEO, RODOLFO ARCEO and Court of Appeals which affirmed the
MANUEL ARCEO, petitioners, decision of the cadastral court and
vs. dismissed the appeal.
HON. COURT OF APPEALS (Former 16th
Division), PEDRO M. ARCEO, SOTERA Issue: Who has better right over the lots in
ARCEO, LORENZO ARCEO, and dispute?
ANTONIO ARCEO, respondents.
Held:
Facts:
The petitioner has better right over the lots.
Spouses Abdon Arceo and Escolastica The Court granted the petition nonetheless
Geronimo were the owners of four parcels on the finding that the lots had been
of unregistered land. They had one son, conferred to Jose by a valid donation inter
Esteban, who died on September 2, 1941. vivos, not by way of acquisitive prescription.

Esteban had five children, Jose, Pedro, The petitioners suppose that the parcels '
Lorenzo, Antonio, and Sotera. Jose married had come under the category of a co-
Virginia Franco, with whom he fathered six ownership, following the death of their
children, Carmelita, Zenaida, Rodolfo, grandparents, but in that case, it has been
Manuel, Cesar, and Romeo. held that in order for prescription to set in,
the following requisites must concur: (1)
Pedro, Lorenzo, Antonio, and Sotera are the there is a clear showing that the claimant
private respondents herein while Jose's has repudiated the co-ownership; (2) he has

The Other Side EH 407 15


A.Y. 2017-2018
made known to the rest of the co-owners Leonica and three sons executed deed and
that he is assuming exclusive ownership sold land to Spuses Francia subject to
over the property; (3) there is clear and repurchase
convincing evidence thereof; and (4) his Potenciana’s heirs did not agree
possession is open, continuous, exclusive, So teofilio and Jose Jrremained in
and notorious. possession
Alejandro (Son of Jose sr.) agreed to repay
The evidence for Virginia et al. do not Spouses Francia, and latter conveyed the
persuade us that they (through Jose) have land to Alejandro
acquired the lots by lapse of time: Alejandro declared himself as owner of
property but recognized rights of Leoncia,
The fact that in 1941, Jose wrested Jose, Jose Jr and Jose Sr.
possession thereof, so we hold, does not Eventually, after Alejandro died, survived by
amount to adverse possession because as wife
a co-owner, he had the right of enjoyment, Amanda, and children
and his use thereof cannot by itself Amanda Reyes Asked Teofilio and Jose Jr
prejudice the right of his fellow co-owners. to vacate along with their children who had
built a house on property
The fact that he paid taxes thereon is not Repsondents filed for quieting of title c
controlling either because payment of real Petitioners claim it was an equitable
estate taxes does not necessarily confer mortgage and not a pacto de retro sale
title upon a claimant. Thus mortgagors had retained
ownership of property and did not
The fact finally that Virginia, et al. had transfer the ownership to Alejandro
sought to extrajudicially divide the property Right was merely to seek reimbursement
is nothing conclusive because there is no from other co-owners
showing that they, Virginia, et al. had made RTC: Respondents
this known to Pedro, et al. CA: Said was an equitable mortgage
But already barred from claiming transaction
Under these circumstances, we cannot of Leonicia for failure to question the same
validly say that the lands had devolved on within 10 years from deeds execution
Virginia., et al., by way of prescription. Issue: Whether the petitioners were barred
by prescription?
iv. Repudiation Held: No
It was an equitable mortgage (not important)
CASE 11: Heirs of Reyes vs Amanda Vendors remained in possession even after
Reyes execution of agreement
Facts Petitioners correct in saying that if
Antonio and Leonicia Reyes were owners of prescription applies to them, the same
a parcel of land should also apply to the respondents.
Had four children (Jose Sr, Jose Jr, Teofilio, Failure of Francia to foreclose mortgage
Potenciana) and accepted payment even after 10 yr
period amounted to estoppel thus
recognizing the equitable mortgage

The Other Side EH 407 16


A.Y. 2017-2018
While Alejandro became a co-owner of the Petitioner Heirs of Flores claimed that they
property after death of Jose Sr. had been in possession of the lot in the
POSSESSION WAS OF THAT A MERE concept of owner for more than thirty (30)
TRUSTEE years and have been paying realty taxes
There was no repudiation of co-ownership since time immemorial. (acquisitive
Four requisites for possession for co- prescription)
owner considered as adverse to the trust RTC held that Flores and his heirs had
Unequivocal acts of repudiation (tax performed acts sufficient to constitute
decs payed by Alejandro does not repudiation of the co-ownership, concluded
constitute unequivocall acts of that they had acquired the lot by
repudiation) prescription.
In cases of equitable mortgages, Appellate court reversed RTC.
consolidation of ownership in one’s Heirs of Flores failed to prove that their
name does not ripen to ownership possession of the lot excluded their co-
because IT IS NOT POSSESSION IN THE owners or that they derived title to it from a
CONCEPT OF OWNER separate conveyance to them by Restar
Acts made known no adequate notice by Flores to his other
Evidence clear and conclusive co-heirs/co-owners of the repudiation of the
Ocen (other co-owners had possession) co-ownership
CASE 12: Heirs of Restar v. Cichon, G.R. ISSUE:
No. 161720, Nov. 22, 2005. WON petitioners acquired ownership over
FACTS: the lot by extraordinary prescription.
In 1935, Emilio Restar (Restar) died HELD:
intestate, leaving 8 children-compulsory YES. Records of the case amply support
heirs: Flores Restar, Dolores Restar- petitioners' claim that the requirements for
Cichon, Perpetua Restar-Sta. Maria, extraordinary prescription had been duly
Paciencia Restar-Manares, Dominica met.
Restar Relojero, Policarpio Restar, Maria Flores took possession of the lot after
Restar-Rose and Adolfo Restar. Restar's death and exercised acts of
In 1960, Restar's eldest child, Flores with dominion thereon. In contrast, Respondents
one Helen Restar, caused the cancellation never possessed the lot and only asserted
of Tax Declaration No. 6696 in Restar's their claim on January 21, 1999 when they
name covering Lot 3177, and the issuance filed the complaint for partition.
of Tax Declaration No. 11134 in his name. While the action to demand partition of a co-
Flores died on June 10, 1989. owned property does not prescribe (see
On November 5, 1998, the co-heirs of Article 494), a co-owner may acquire
Flores discovered the cancellation of ownership thereof by prescription where
Restar's Tax Declaration No. 6696. On there exists a clear repudiation of the co-
1999, they filed a complaint against Flores' ownership, and the co-owners are apprised
heirs for partition of the lot, declaration of of the claim of adverse and exclusive
nullity of documents, ownership with ownership.
damages and preliminary injunction before Acquisitive prescription may be ordinary or
the RTC of Aklan. extraordinary. (see Arts. 1117, 1134, 137)

The Other Side EH 407 17


A.Y. 2017-2018
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires CA- reversed the decision of the trial court
possession of things in good faith and with
just title for a period of ten years. Issue: WON the petitioners action for
Without good faith and just title, acquisitive partition is already barred by the statutory
prescription can only be extraordinary in period provided by law
character which requires uninterrupted
adverse possession for thirty years. SC: held that when a co-owner of the
The statutory period of prescription property in question executed a deed of
commenced in 1960 (not in 1935) when partition and on the strength thereof
Flores, who had neither title nor good faith, obtained the cancellation of the title in the
secured a tax declaration in his name and name of their predecessor and the issuance
may, therefore, be said to have adversely of a new one wherein he appears as the
claimed ownership of the lot. And new owner of the property, thereby in effect
respondents were also deemed to have denying or repudiating the ownership of the
been on said date become aware of the other co-owners over their shares, the
adverse claim. statute of limitations started to run for the
Flores' possession thus ripened into purposes of the action instituted by the latter
ownership through acquisitive prescription seeking a declaration of the existence of the
after the lapse of thirty years in accordance co-ownership and of their rights thereunder.
with the earlier quoted Article 1137. Since an action for reconveyance of land
While tax declarations and receipts are not based on implied or constructive trust
conclusive evidence of ownership and do prescribes after ten (10) years, it is from the
not prove title to the land, nevertheless, date of the issuance of such title that the
when coupled with actual possession, they effective assertion of adverse title for
constitute evidence of great weight and can purposes of the statute of limitations is
be the basis of a claim of ownership through counted.
prescription.
The affidavit was executed and a TCT was
CASE 13: Delima v CA issued to Galileo on February 4, 1954

Lino Delima bought a lot from the friar The issuance of this new title constituted an
lands. He died and was survived by his open and clear repudiation of the trust or
brothers and sisters. co-ownership, and the lapse of ten (10)
Galileo was the caretaker of the property. years of adverse possession by Galileo
Sometime in 1953, He was able to execute Delima from February 4, 1954 was sufficient
an affidavit of extrajudicial declaration of to vest title in him by prescription. As the
heirs adjudicating to himself the parcel of certificate of title was notice to the whole
land and was able to secure the issuance of world of his exclusive title to the land, such
a TCT in his name excluding the other heirs rejection was binding on the other heirs and
This prompted the petitioners to file with the started as against them the period of
RTC to file an action reconveyance in 1968 prescription. Hence, when petitioners filed
against uncle Galileo and Vicente Delima their action for reconveyance and/or to
compel partition on February 29, 1968, such
RTC - ruled in favor of the petitioners action was already barred by prescription.

The Other Side EH 407 18


A.Y. 2017-2018
Whatever claims the other co-heirs could It was further alleged that Fidela Ocampo
have validly asserted before can no longer executed in favor of spouses Barrito Deed
be invoked by them at this time. of Donation Inter Vivos of a parcel of land,
both parties in deed knowing that the
Sidenote: it is no longer imprescriptible subject land is one of the subjects of a
because there was already a clear complaint.
repudiation of ownership since as a general Defendant Barrito, in her defense, avers
rule the co-owners could have the lot that Fidela Ocampo has been the absolute
partitioned at anytime but this already owner in fee simple of the property by virtue
became an issue of ownership since one of of the issuance of the COT in her name and
the co-owners already claimed ownership they were issued with a COT in their name
by virtue of the trust that he was supposed after the execution of the deed of donation.
to deliver the land to his co owners. Since then, the plaintiffs never questioned
the absolute ownership and the titles issued
10 years prescription because it was based to Barrito, making the decree
on implied or constructive trust incontrovertible. Thus, Barrito’s title cannot
vi. Action for Partition (Art. 496) be collaterally attacked in the supposed
partition proceedings.
CASE 14 Action for Partition
OCAMPO vs Fidela OCAMPO CA – Other than the Acknowledgement of
FACTS: Co-ownership executed by the respondent
‘This is a civil suit for partition and damages Fidela Ocampo, no documentary evidence
filed by plaintiffs against the defendants. was offered to establish petitioner’s claim of
The complaint in this case alleges that ownership.
during the lifetime of the spouses Ocampo Dismissed petitioners’ contention that
they acquired several parcels of land. common ownership was indicated by the
These are actually owned in common by all fact that some of the children of Spouses
of their children of the late spouses although Ocampo stayed and lived on the subject
a parcel of land is only registered in the property. It ruled that fraternal affection
name of Fidela Ocampo alone but could have been the motive that impelled
acknowledged by her as a property owned respondents to allow their relatives to use it.
in common by all of them.
Plaintiffs in this case desire to partition said ISSUE: Whether or not there was co-
properties but defendants Fidela Ocampo ownership between Fidela Ocampo and the
and Felicidad unlawfully refused to do so other siblings over the subject land.
and instead, mortgaged the land to PNB to SC:
secure the payment of a loan. Further, it The petition has no merit.
was alleged that defendants have been The original complaint being an action for
receiving the fruits of the properties to the partition, the Court cannot order a division
exclusion of the others. of the property unless it first makes a
In this complaint, the plaintiffs pray that a determination as to the existence of a co-
judgment be rendered ordering the partition ownership.
of the properties and to release or cancel all The settlement of the issue of ownership is
encumbrances. the first stage in an action for partition. This

The Other Side EH 407 19


A.Y. 2017-2018
action will not lie if the claimant has no Doctrine:
rightful interest in the subject property. In actions for partition, the court must first
Parties filing the action are in fact required settle the issue of co-ownership.
by the Rules of Court to set forth in their Facts:
complaint the nature and the extent of their (Overview: Below properties are properties
title to the property. It would be premature to originally owned by the estate of Sps.
effect a partition thereof until and unless the Pantaleon Del Rosario & the late Ceferina
question of ownership is first definitely Llamas. Vicente is the son of the spouses
resolved. while Teresita is the maternal
Petitioners’ chief evidence of co-ownership granddaughter (and heir) of Ceferina.
of the property in question is simply the Ownership of the properties are shared by
Acknowledgment of Co-ownership executed the heirs before partition.)
by Fidela. As mentioned earlier, both the 1. Father and son Pantaleon & Vicente Del
trial and the appellate courts were correct in Rosario (respondent herein) filed an action
finding that this piece of documentary for Partition of several parcels of land
evidence could not prevail over the array of grouped as: Tupas Properties, Asinan
testimonial and documentary evidence that Properties, Figueroa Property, Barili
were adduced by respondents. Properties, Mambaling Properties, Negros
Further the Acknowledgment of Co- Properties, and Other Properties. They
ownership could not be a fact against the alleged that Teresita S. Reyes-De Leon
interest of the declarant, since her right over (petitioner herein) allegedly sold her share
the property had already been extinguished of the properties in favor of Vicente in a
by the prior act of donation. Thus, at the deed of absolute sale.
time of the declaration, Fidela could not 2. Teresita claimed that the only shares of
have acknowledged co-ownership, as she the properties she sold were the Asinan and
had no more property against which she Negros Properties. She averred that the
had an interest to declare. deed of absolute sale was fraudulently
With respect to the Barritos, they have been added with the phrase, “including any and
paying the real estate taxes of the property. all of her shares, rights and interest on all
While petitioners could not show any title, other real estate properties together with
tax receipt or document to prove their their improvements…” Thus, Teresita filed a
ownership except on the reliance of the complaint for declaration of nullity of deed of
Acknowledgement of Co-ownership. absolute sale.
Having filed the action involving the 3. The trial court dismissed Teresita’s
property, petitioners should have relied on complaint on the ground that the issue of
the strength of their claim of own title and ownership should first be determined and
not on the alleged weakness of resolved in the partition case (first case was
respondent’s claim. a partition case filed by the Del Rosarios
Thus the petition should be denied. and second case was Teresita’s complaint
for nullity). Furthermore, filing the two cases
CASE 15: Teresita S. Reyes-De Leon vs. amounts to multiplicity of suits and forum-
Vicente B. Del Rosario shopping.
[G.R. 152862] 4. Teresita filed for petition for certiorari to
the SC.

The Other Side EH 407 20


A.Y. 2017-2018
ISSUE: WON Teresita is barred from filing Guillermo, Leopoldo and Severo, all
an action for declaration of nullity of surnamed Maglucot, rented portions of Lot
absolute sale on the ground that the issue 1639-D and built houses on their
of ownership is yet to be settled in an action corresponding leased lots. In 1992,
for partition (Is this forum shopping? Is there however, said lessees stopped paying
multiplicity of suits? If the partition case is rentals claiming ownership over the subject
settled, does this mean res judicata for the lot alleging that there was no valid partition
declaration of nullity?) that took place in the absence of a
HELD: confirmed subdivision plan.
YES (for all questions in above issues). Petitioners filed with the RTC a complaint
An order of partition presupposes a state of for recovery of possession and damages
co-ownership of a property/ies amongst alleging that they are the owners of Lot
interested parties. The issue of co- 1639-D.
ownership and the rights of the claimants The lower court ruled that there was already
must necessarily be resolved first in order to a subdivision of Lot 1639. The RTC found
effect a partition of the properties. the existence of tax declarations in the
In the case at bar, Teresita filed an action names of Hermogenes Olis and Pascual
for declaration of nullity of the same deed of Olis (purported owners of Lot Nos. 1639-A
sale that is being disputed in the Del and 1639-B, respectively) as indubitable
Rosario’s action for partition. In other words, proof that there was a subdivision of Lot No.
the two actions stem from the same 1639. It likewise found that Tomas
questioned deed of sale. A judgement of its Maglucot, respondents' predecessor-in-
validity or nullity in any of the two cases interest, took active part in the partition as it
would constitute res judicata in the other. was he, in fact, who commenced the action
Teresita cannot file a separate action for for partition. Said court, likewise, ruled that
nullity in a different case pending the the tax declarationsover the houses of
partition case, rather she can dispute the respondents, expressly stating that the
execution of the deed of absolute sale and same are constructed on the lots of Roberto
assert her rights to the properties in the Maglucot, constitute a conclusive admission
same partition case. In this case, she is by them of the ownership of the subject lot
thus deemed guilty of forum shopping by by the latter.
filing her own separate action. On appeal, the CA reversed the decision of
the RTC. The appellate court ruled that the
vii. Application of the Statute of Frauds sketch plan and tax declarations relied upon
by petitioners are not conclusive evidence
CASE 16: GAVINA MAGLUCOT-AW vs. of partition
LEOPOLDO MAGLUCOT
(G.R. No. 132518. March 28, 2000) Issue: Whether there was a valid partition in
Facts: 1952.
In 1952, upon petition to subdivide Lot No.
1639, the then CFI of Negros Oriental Ruling:
issued an order subdividing said lot into six Yes. In this jurisdiction, an action for
(6) portions, Lot 1639-A to Lot 1639-F. Lot partition is comprised of two phases: first,
1639-D was issued to Roberto Maglucot. an order for partition which determines

The Other Side EH 407 21


A.Y. 2017-2018
whether a co-ownership in fact exists, and may be presumed. It has been held that
whether partition is proper; and, second, a recitals in deeds, possession and
decision confirming the sketch or occupation of land, improvements made
subdivision submitted by the parties or the thereon for a long series of years, and
commissioners appointed by the court, as acquiescence for 60 years, furnish sufficient
the case may be. evidence that there was an actual partition
The records of the case show that of land either by deed or by proceedings in
sometime in 1946 there was a prior oral the probate court, which had been lost and
agreement to tentatively partition Lot No. were not recorded. And where a tract of
1639. By virtue of this agreement, the land held in common has been subdivided
original co-owners occupied specific into lots, and one of the lots has long been
portions of Lot No. 1639. It was only in 1952 known and called by the name of one of the
when the petition to subdivide Lot No. 1639 tenants in common, and there is no
was filed because two of the co-owners, evidence of any subsequent claim of a
namely Hermogenes Olis and heirs of tenancy in common, it may fairly be inferred
Pascual Olis, refused to have said lot that there has been a partition and that such
subdivided and have separate certificates of lot was set off to him whose name it bears.
title. Significantly, after the 1952
proceedings, the parties in this case by Petition is GRANTED.
themselves and/or through their
predecessors-in-interest occupied specific
portions of Lot No. 1639 in accordance with
the sketch plan. Such possession remained
so until this case arose, or about forty (40)
years later.
From its order in 1952, it can be gleaned
that the CFI took notice of the tentative
subdivision plan by oral partition of the
parties therein. Further, it appears that said
court was aware that the parties therein
actually took possession of the portions in
accordance with the sketch/subdivision
plan. There is no showing that respondents
by themselves or through their
predecessors-in-interest raised any
objections. On the contrary, the records
show that the parties continued their
possession of the specific portions of Lot
No. 1639 pursuant to the sketch/subdivision
plan.
Partition may be inferred from
circumstances sufficiently strong to support
the presumption. Thus, after a long
possession in severalty, a deed of partition

The Other Side EH 407 22


A.Y. 2017-2018

Você também pode gostar