You are on page 1of 14

G.R.No.174727.August12,2013.

ANTIPOLO INING (deceased), survived by MANUEL


VILLANUEVA, TEODORA VILLANUEVAFRANCISCO,
CAMlLO FRANCISCO, ADOLFO FRANCISCO, LUCIMO
FRANCISCO,
JR.,
MILAGROS
FRANCISCO,**
CELEDONIO
FRANCISCO,
HERMINIGILDO
FRANCISCO; RAMON TRESVALLES, ROBERTO
TAJONERA, NATIVIDAD ININGIBEA (deceased)
survivedbyEDILBERTOIBEA,JOSEFAIBEA,MARTHA
IBEA, CARMEN IBEA, AMPARO IBEAFERNANDEZ,
HENRYRUIZ,EUGENIORUIZand
_______________
*SECONDDIVISION.
** Sometimes referred to as Milagrosa Francisco in some parts of
therecords.
407

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

407

Ining vs. Vega


PASTOR RUIZ; DOLORES ININGRIMON (deceased)
survived by JESUS RIMON, CESARlA RIMON
GONZALES and REMEDIOS RIMON CORDERO; and
PEDROINING(deceased)survivedbyELISATANINING
(wife)andPEDROINING,JR.,petitioners,vs.LEONARDO
R.VEGA,substitutedbyLOURDESVEGA,RESTONILOI.
VEGA, CRISPULO M. VEGA, MILBUENA VEGA
RESTITUTO,andLENARDVEGA,respondents.
Civil Law; Succession; Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the
rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of
death.Since Leon died without issue, his heirs are his siblings,
Romana and Gregoria, who thus inherited the property in equal
shares.Inturn,RomanasandGregoriasheirsthepartiesherein
becameentitledtothepropertyuponthesisterspassing.Under
Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are
transmittedfromthemomentofdeath.
Same; Same; CoOwnership; Each coowner may demand at
any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his
share is concerned.Having succeeded to the property as heirs of
Gregoria and Romana, petitioners and respondents became co
ownersthereof.Ascoowners,theymayusethepropertyownedin
common, provided they do so in accordance with the purpose for
whichitisintendedandinsuchawayasnottoinjuretheinterest
of the coownership or prevent the other coowners from using it
accordingtotheirrights.Theyhavethefullownershipoftheirparts
andofthefruitsandbenefitspertainingthereto,andmayalienate,
assign or mortgage them, and even substitute another person in
theirenjoyment,exceptwhenpersonalrightsareinvolved.Eachco

ownermaydemandatanytimethepartitionofthethingownedin
common, insofar as his share is concerned. Finally, no prescription
shallruninfavorofoneofthecoheirsagainsttheotherssolongas
heexpresslyorimpliedlyrecognizesthecoownership.
Same; Same; Family Relations; Relationship; Under the Family
Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession,
exclude relations by affinity.Whatescapedthetrialandappellate
courtsnotice,however,isthatwhileitmaybearguedthatLucimo
Sr.performedactsthatmaybecharacterizedasarepudiationofthe
coownership,thefactis,heisnotacoowneroftheproperty.In
408

408

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

deed, he is not an heir of Gregoria; he is merely Antipolos sonin


law, being married to Antipolos daughter Teodora. Under the
Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for
succession, exclude relations by affinity. Art. 150. Family relations
includethose:(1)Betweenhusbandandwife;(2)Betweenparents
andchildren;(3)Amongotherascendantsanddescendants;and(4)
Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood. In
pointoflaw,therefore,LucimoSr.isnotacoowneroftheproperty;
Teodora is. Consequently, he cannot validly effect a repudiation of
the coownership, which he was never part of. For this reason,
prescription did not run adversely against Leonardo, and his right
toseekapartitionofthepropertyhasnotbeenlost.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and


resolutionoftheCourtofAppeals.
ThefactsarestatedintheopinionoftheCourt.
Julius L. Leonidaforpetitioners.
Gepty Dela Cruz Morales & Associates forrespondents.
DELCASTILLO,J.:
One who is merely related by affinity to the decedent
does not inherit from the latter and cannot become a co
owner of the decedents property. Consequently, he cannot
effect a repudiation of the coownership of the estate that
wasformedamongthedecedentsheirs.
AssailedinthisPetitionforReviewonCertiorari1arethe
March 14, 2006 Decision2 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in
CAG.R. CV No. 74687 and its September 7, 2006
Resolution3
denying
petitioners
Motion
for
4
Reconsideration.
_______________
1Rollo,pp.1052.
2 CA Rollo, pp. 97107; penned by Associate Justice Pampio A.
Abarintos and concurred in by Associate Justices Enrico A. Lanzanas
andApolinarioD.Bruselas,Jr.
3Id.,atp.136.
4Id.,atpp.113120.
409

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

409

Ining vs. Vega


Factual Antecedents
LeonRoldan(Leon),marriedtoRafaelaMenez(Rafaela),
istheownerofa3,120squaremeterparcelofland(subject
property)inKalibo,AklancoveredbyOriginalCertificateof
TitleNo.(24071)RO6305(OCTRO630).LeonandRafaela
died without issue. Leon was survived by his siblings
Romana Roldan (Romana) and Gregoria Roldan Ining
(Gregoria),whoarenowbothdeceased.
Romana was survived by her daughter Anunciacion
Vega and grandson, herein respondent Leonardo R. Vega
(Leonardo) (also both deceased). Leonardo in turn is
survivedbyhiswifeLourdesandchildrenRestoniloI.Vega,
Crispulo M. Vega, Milbuena VegaRestituto and Lenard
Vega,thesubstitutedrespondents.
Gregoria, on the other hand, was survived by her six
children: petitioners Natividad IningIbea (Natividad),
Dolores IningRimon (Dolores), Antipolo, and Pedro; Jose;
and Amando. Natividad is survived by Edilberto Ibea,
Josefa Ibea, Martha Ibea, Carmen Ibea, Amparo Ibea
Fernandez, Henry Ruiz and Pastor Ruiz. Dolores is
survived by Jesus Rimon, Cesaria Rimon Gonzales and
Remedios Rimon Cordero. Antipolo is survived by Manuel
Villanueva, daughter Teodora VillanuevaFrancisco
(Teodora), Camilo Francisco (Camilo), Adolfo Francisco
(Adolfo), Lucimo Francisco, Jr. (Lucimo Jr.), Milagros
Francisco,CeledonioFrancisco,andHerminigildoFrancisco
(Herminigildo). Pedro is survived by his wife, Elisa Tan
Ining and Pedro Ining, Jr. Amando died without issue. As
forJose,itisnotclearfromtherecordsifhewasmadeparty
totheproceedings,orifheisaliveatall.
_______________
5ExhibitA,FolderofExhibitsfortheRespondents.Thepropertyis
alternately referred to in the various pleadings and in the decisions of
the trial and appellate courts as Original Certificate of Title No. RO
630 (24071), or Original Certificate of Title No. RO630 (2407), or
Original Certificate of Title No. RO630 (240710), or Original
CertificateofTitleNo.630.
410

410

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

Inshort,hereinpetitioners,exceptforRamonTresvalles
(Tresvalles) and Roberto Tajonera (Tajonera), are
Gregorias grandchildren or spouses thereof (Gregorias
heirs).
In 1997, acting on the claim that onehalf of subject
property belonged to him as Romanas surviving heir,
Leonardo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Kalibo,AklanCivilCaseNo.52756forpartition,recoveryof
ownershipandpossession,withdamages,againstGregorias
heirs.InhisAmendedComplaint,7Leonardoallegedthaton

severaloccasions,hedemandedthepartitionoftheproperty
but Gregorias heirs refused to heed his demands; that the
matter reached the level of the Lupon Tagapamayapa,
whichissuedacertificationtofileacourtactionsometimein
1980; that Gregorias heirs claimed sole ownership of the
property; that portions of the property were sold to
Tresvalles and Tajonera, which portions must be collated
and included as part of the portion to be awarded to
Gregorias heirs; that in 1979, Lucimo Francisco, Sr.
(LucimoSr.),husbandofhereinpetitionerTeodora,illegally
claimedabsoluteownershipofthepropertyandtransferred
inhisnamethetaxdeclarationcoveringtheproperty;that
from 1988, Lucimo Sr. and Teodora have deprived him
(Leonardo) of the fruits of the property estimated at
P1,000.00peryear;thatasaresult,heincurredexpensesby
way of attorneys fees and litigation costs. Leonardo thus
prayedthathebedeclaredtheownerofhalfofthesubject
property; that the same be partitioned after collation and
determination of the portion to which he is entitled; that
Gregorias heirs be ordered to execute the necessary
documents or agreements; and that he (Leonardo) be
awarded actual damages in the amount of P1,000.00 per
yearfrom1988,attorneysfeesofP50,000.00,andlawyers
appearancefeesofP500.00perhearing.
_______________
6AssignedtoBranch8.
7Records,pp.1014.
411

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

411

Ining vs. Vega


In their Answer8 with counterclaim, Teodora, Camilo,
Adolfo,LucimoJr.andHerminigildoclaimedthatLeonardo
hadnocauseofactionagainstthem;thattheyhavebecome
thesoleownersofthesubjectpropertythroughLucimoSr.
who acquired the same in good faith by sale from Juan
Enriquez (Enriquez), who in turn acquired the same from
Leon,andLeonardowasawareofthisfact;thattheywerein
continuous, actual, adverse, notorious and exclusive
possession of the property with a just title; that they have
been paying the taxes on the property; that Leonardos
claimisbarredbyestoppelandlaches;andthattheyhave
suffered damages and were forced to litigate as a result of
Leonardosmalicioussuit.TheyprayedthatCivilCaseNo.
5275bedismissed;thatLeonardobedeclaredtobewithout
any right to the property; that Leonardo be ordered to
surrender the certificate of title to the property; and that
theybeawardedP20,000.00asmoraldamages,P10,000.00
as temperate and nominal damages, P20,000.00 as
attorneysfees,anddoublecosts.
The other Gregoria heirs, as well as Tresvalles and
Tajoneraweredeclaredindefault.9
Asagreedduringpretrial,thetrialcourtcommissioned
Geodetic Engineer Rafael M. Escabarte to identify the
metes and bounds of the property.10 The resulting

Commissioners Report and Sketch,11 as well as the


Supplementary Commissioners Report,12 were duly
approved by the parties. The parties then submitted the
followingissuesforresolutionofthetrialcourt:
_______________
8Id.,atpp.2831.
9SeeOrderdatedSeptember3,1997,id.,atp.49.
10SeeOrderdatedOctober30,1998,id.,atp.151.
11Exhibits5and51,FolderofExhibitsfortheRespondents.
12ExhibitT,id.
412

412

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

1.Whether Leonardo is entitled to a share in Leons


estate;
2.Whether Leon sold the subject property to Lucimo
Sr.;and
3.WhetherLeonardosclaimhasprescribed,orthathe
isbarredbyestoppelorlaches.13
In the meantime, Leonardo passed away and was duly
substitutedbyhisheirs,therespondentsherein.14
During the course of the proceedings, the following
additionalrelevantfactscametolight:
1.In 1995, Leonardo filed against petitioners Civil
Case No. 4983 for partition with the RTC Kalibo, but the
case was dismissed and referred to the Kalibo Municipal
Trial Court (MTC), where the case was docketed as Civil
Case No. 1366. However, on March 4, 1997, the MTC
dismissed Civil Case No. 1366 for lack of jurisdiction and
declared that only the RTC can take cognizance of the
partitioncase;15
2.ThepropertywasallegedlysoldbyLeontoEnriquez
through an unnotarized document dated April 4, 1943.16
EnriquezinturnallegedlysoldthepropertytoLucimoSr.
onNovember25,1943viaanotherprivatesaledocument;17
3.Petitionerswereinsolepossessionofthepropertyfor
more than 30 years, while Leonardo acquired custody of
OCTRO630;18
4.On February 9, 1979, Lucimo Sr. executed an
AffidavitofOwnershipofLand19claimingsoleownershipof
theprop
_______________
13SeePreTrialOrderdatedAugust4,1999,records,pp.192193.
14Id.,atpp.198199.
15Id.,atp.12.
16Exhibit4,FolderofExhibitsforthePetitioners.
17Exhibit9,id.
18Records,pp.267269,271.
19Exhibit11,FolderofExhibitsforthePetitioners.
413

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

413

Ining vs. Vega


ertywhichheutilizedtosecureinhisnameTaxDeclaration
No.16414(TD16414)overthepropertyandtocancelTax
DeclarationNo.20102inLeonsname;20
5.LucimoSr.diedin1991;and
6.Thepropertywaspartitionedamongthepetitioners,
totheexclusionofLeonardo.21
Ruling of the Regional Trial Court
On November 19, 2001, the trial court rendered a
Decision,22whichdecreedasfollows:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, judgment is hereby
rendered:
1.Dismissingthecomplaintonthegroundthatplaintiffs
right of action has long prescribed under Article 1141 of the
NewCivilCode;
2. Declaring Lot 1786 covered by OCT No. RO630
(24071) to be the common property of the heirs of Gregoria
Roldan Ining and by virtue whereof, OCT No. RO630
(24071)isorderedcancelledandtheRegisterofDeedsofthe
Province of Aklan is directed to issue a transfer certificate of
title to the heirs of Natividad Ining, onefourth (1/4) share;
Heirs of Dolores Ining, onefourth (1/4) share; Heirs of
Antipolo Ining, onefourth (1/4) share; and Heirs of Pedro
Ining,onefourth(1/4)share.
Forlackofsufficientevidence,thecounterclaimisordered
dismissed.
Withcostagainsttheplaintiffs.
SOORDERED.23
_______________
20Exhibit12, id.
21Exhibit15,id.
22Records,pp.262279;pennedbyJudgeEustaquioG.Terencio.
23Id.,atpp.278279.
414

414

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

ThetrialcourtfoundtheApril4,1943andNovember25,
1943 deeds of sale to be spurious. It concluded that Leon
neversoldthepropertytoEnriquez,andinturn,Enriquez
never sold the property to Lucimo Sr., hence, the subject
property remained part of Leons estate at the time of his
deathin1962.Leonssiblings,RomanaandGregoria,thus
inherited the subject property in equal shares. Leonardo
andtherespondentsareentitledtoRomanasshareasthe
latterssuccessors.
However,thetrialcourtheldthatLeonardohadonly30
yearsfromLeonsdeathin1962orupto1992within
which to file the partition case. Since Leonardo instituted
thepartitionsuitonlyin1997,thesamewasalreadybarred
byprescription.ItheldthatunderArticle1141oftheCivil

Code,24 an action for partition and recovery of ownership


and possession of a parcel of land is a real action over
immovable property which prescribes in 30 years. In
addition, the trial court held that for his long inaction,
Leonardo was guilty of laches as well. Consequently, the
propertyshouldgotoGregoriasheirsexclusively.
Respondents moved for reconsideration25 but the same
wasdeniedbytheRTCinitsFebruary7,2002Order.26
Ruling of the Court of Appeals
Only respondents interposed an appeal with the CA.
DocketedasCAG.R.CVNo.74687,theappealquestioned
theproprietyofthetrialcourtsdismissalofCivilCaseNo.
5275, its application of Article 1141, and the award of the
propertytoGregoriasheirsexclusively.
_______________
24 Art.1141.Real actions over immovables prescribe after thirty
years.
This provision is without prejudice to what is established for the
acquisitionofownershipandotherrealrightsbyprescription.
25Records,pp.284286.
26Id.,atp.302.
415

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

415

Ining vs. Vega


On March 14, 2006, the CA issued the questioned
Decision,27whichcontainedthefollowingdecretalportion:
IN LIGHT OF ALL THE FOREGOING, this appeal is
GRANTED. The decision of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 8,
Kalibo, Aklan in Civil Case No. 5275 is REVERSED and
SET ASIDE.Inlieuthereof,judgmentisrenderedasfollows:
1.Declaring 1/2 portion of Lot 1786 as the share of the
plaintiffsassuccessorsininterestofRomanaRoldan;
2.Declaring 1/2 portion of Lot 1786 as the share of the
defendantsassuccessorsininterestofGregoriaRoldanIning;
3.Ordering the defendants to deliver the possession of
the portion described in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the
Commissioners Report (Supplementary) to the herein
plaintiffs;
4.OrderingthecancellationofOCTNo.RO630(24071)
in the name of Leon Roldan and the Register of Deeds of
Aklan is directed to issue transfer certificates of title to the
plaintiffsinaccordancewithparagraphs8and9ofthesketch
plan as embodied in the Commissioners Report
(Supplementary) and the remaining portion thereof be
adjudgedtothedefendants.
Otherclaimsandcounterclaimsaredismissed.
Costsagainstthedefendantsappellees.
SO ORDERED.28

TheCAheldthatthetrialcourtsdeclarationofnullityof
the April 4, 1943 and November 25, 1943 deeds of sale in
favorofEnriquezandLucimoSr.,respectively,becamefinal
and was settled by petitioners failure to appeal the same.

Proceedingfromthepremisethatnovalidpriordisposition
of
_______________
27CARollo,pp.97107.
28 Id.,atpp.106107.Emphasesintheoriginal.
416

416

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

the property was made by its owner Leon and that the
propertywhichremainedpartofhisestateatthetimeof
his death passed on by succession to his two siblings,
RomanaandGregoria,whichthusmakesthepartiesherein
who are Romanas and Gregorias heirs coowners of
thepropertyinequalshares,theappellatecourtheldthat
onlytheissuesofprescriptionandlacheswereneededtobe
resolved.
The CA did not agree with the trial courts
pronouncement that Leonardos action for partition was
barred by prescription. The CA declared that prescription
began to run not from Leons death in 1962, but from
LucimoSr.sexecutionoftheAffidavitofOwnershipofLand
in 1979, which amounted to a repudiation of his co
ownershipofthepropertywithLeonardo.Applyingthefifth
paragraphofArticle494oftheCivilCode,whichprovides
that[n]oprescriptionshallruninfavorofacoownerorco
heiragainsthiscoownersorcoheirssolongasheexpressly
orimpliedlyrecognizesthecoownership,theCAheldthat
it was only when Lucimo Sr. executed the Affidavit of
Ownership of Land in 1979 and obtained a new tax
declarationovertheproperty(TD16414)solelyinhisname
that a repudiation of his coownership with Leonardo was
made, which repudiation effectively commenced the
running of the 30year prescriptive period under Article
1141.
The CA did not consider Lucimo Sr.s sole possession of
the property for more than 30 years to the exclusion of
Leonardoandtherespondentsasavalidrepudiationofthe
coownershipeither,statingthathisexclusivepossessionof
the property and appropriation of its fruits even his
continuous payment of the taxes thereon while adverse
as against strangers, may not be deemed so as against
Leonardointheabsenceofclearandconclusiveevidenceto
theeffectthatthelatterwasoustedordeprivedofhisrights
as coowner with the intention of assuming exclusive
ownershipovertheproperty,andabsentashowingthatthis
waseffectivelymade
417

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

417

Ining vs. Vega


known to Leonardo. Citing Bargayo v. Camumot29 and

Segura v. Segura,30theappellatecourtheldthatasarule,
possessionbyacoownerwillnotbepresumedtobeadverse
to the other coowners but will be held to benefit all, and
thatacoownerorcoheirisinpossessionofaninheritance
proindiviso for himself and in representation of his co
ownersorcoheirsifheadministersortakescareoftherest
thereof with the obligation to deliver the same to his co
owners or coheirs, as is the case of a depositary, lessee or
trustee.
TheCAaddedthatthepaymentoftaxesbyLucimoSr.
andtheissuanceofanewtaxdeclarationinhisnamedonot
proveownership;theymerelyindicateaclaimofownership.
Moreover, petitioners act of partitioning the property
among themselves to the exclusion of Leonardo cannot
affect the latter; nor may it be considered a repudiation of
thecoownershipasithasnotbeenshownthatthepartition
wasmadeknowntoLeonardo.
TheCAheldfurtherthattheprincipleoflachescannot
applyasagainstLeonardoandtherespondents.Itheldthat
laches is controlled by equitable considerations and it
cannot be used to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud; it
cannot be utilized to deprive the respondents of their
rightfulinheritance.
On the basis of the above pronouncements, the CA
grantedrespondentsprayerforpartition,directingthatthe
manner of partitioning the property shall be governed by
the Commissioners Report and Sketch and the
Supplementary Commissioners Report which the parties
didnotcontest.
PetitionersfiledtheirMotionforReconsideration31which
the CA denied in its assailed September 7, 2006
Resolution.32Hence,thepresentPetition.
_______________
2940Phil.857,872(1920).
30247APhil.449,458;165SCRA368,376(1988).
31CARollo,pp.113120.
32Id.,atp.136.
418

418

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

Issues
Petitionersraisethefollowingarguments:
I
THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF
DISCRETION IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL
COURT ON THE GROUND THAT LUCIMO FRANCISCO
REPUDIATED THE COOWNERSHIP ONLY ON FEBRUARY 9,
1979.
II
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE
DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSING THE
COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION AND
LACHES.33

PetitionersArguments
Petitioners insist in their Petition and Reply34 that
Lucimo Sr.s purchase of the property in 1943 and his
possession thereof amounted to a repudiation of the co
ownership, and that Leonardos admission and
acknowledgmentofLucimoSr.spossessionforsuchlength
of time operated to bestow upon petitioners as Lucimo
Sr.s successorsininterest the benefits of acquisitive
prescriptionwhichproceededfromtherepudiation.
Petitioners contend that Leonardos inaction from
Lucimo Sr.s taking possession in 1943, up to 1995, when
Leonardo filed Civil Case No. 4983 for partition with the
RTCKaliboamountedtolachesorneglect.Theyaddthat
duringtheproceedingsbeforetheLupon Tagapamayapain
1980, Leonardo was informed of Lucimo Sr.s purchase of
the property in 1943; this notwithstanding, Leonardo did
nottakeactionthenagainstLucimoSr.anddidsoonlyin
1995, when he filed Civil Case No. 4983 which was
eventuallydis
_______________
33Rollo,p.40.
34Id.,atpp.278281.
419

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

419

Ining vs. Vega


missed and referred to the MTC. They argue that, all this
time, Leonardo did nothing while Lucimo Sr. occupied the
propertyandclaimedallitsfruitsforhimself.
Respondents Arguments
Respondents, on the other hand, argue in their
Comment35that
For purposes of clarity, if [sic] is respectfully submitted
thateighteen(18)legiblecopieshas[sic]notbeenfiledinthis
caseforconsiderationinbanc[sic]andnine(9)copiesincases
heard before a division in that [sic] all copies of pleadings
served to the offices concern [sic] where said order [sic] was
issued were not furnished two (2) copies each in violation to
[sic] the adverse parties [sic] to the clerk of court, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 8, Kalibo, Aklan, Philippines; to the
Honorable Court of Appeals so that No [sic] action shall be
taken on such pleadings, briefs, memoranda, motions, and
otherpapersasfail[sic]tocomplywiththerequisitessetout
inthisparagraph.
The foregoing is confirmed by affidavit of MERIDON F.
OLANDESCA, the law secretary of the Petitioner [sic] who
sent [sic] by Registered mail to Court of Appeals, Twentieth
Division, Cebu City; to Counsel for Respondent [sic] and to
theClerkofCourtSupremeCourtManila[sic].
These will show that Petitioner has [sic] violated all the
requirements of furnishing two (2) copies each concerned
party[sic]undertheRuleofCourts[sic].36

Our Ruling

TheCourtdeniesthePetition.
_______________
35Id.,atpp.259275.
36Id.,atpp.272273.
420

420

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

The finding that Leon did not sell


the property to Lucimo Sr. had long
been settled and had become final
for failure of petitioners to appeal.
Thus, the property remained part of
Leons estate.
One issue submitted for resolution by the parties to the
trialcourtiswhetherLeonsoldthepropertytoLucimoSr.
Thetrialcourt,examiningthetwodeedsofsaleexecutedin
favor of Enriquez and Lucimo Sr., found them to be
spurious.ItthenconcludedthatnosuchsalefromLeonto
LucimoSr.evertookplace.Despitethisfinding,petitioners
did not appeal. Consequently, any doubts regarding this
matter should be considered settled. Thus, petitioners
insistenceonLucimoSr.s1943purchaseofthepropertyto
reinforce their claim over the property must be ignored.
Since no transfer from Leon to Lucimo Sr. took place, the
subjectpropertyclearlyremainedpartofLeonsestateupon
hispassingin1962.
Leon died without issue; his
heirs are his siblings Romana
and Gregoria.
SinceLeondiedwithoutissue,hisheirsarehissiblings,
Romana and Gregoria, who thus inherited the property in
equalshares.Inturn,RomanasandGregoriasheirsthe
partieshereinbecameentitledtothepropertyuponthe
sisters passing. Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the
rightstothesuccessionaretransmittedfromthemomentof
death.
Gregorias and Romanas heirs
are coowners of the subject
property.
421

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

421

Ining vs. Vega


Thus, having succeeded to the property as heirs of
GregoriaandRomana,petitionersandrespondentsbecame
coownersthereof.Ascoowners,theymayusetheproperty
owned in common, provided they do so in accordance with
thepurposeforwhichitisintendedandinsuchawayasnot
to injure the interest of the coownership or prevent the
other coowners from using it according to their rights.37
Theyhavethefullownershipoftheirpartsandofthefruits

andbenefitspertainingthereto,andmayalienate,assignor
mortgagethem,andevensubstituteanotherpersonintheir
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.38
Eachcoownermaydemandatanytimethepartitionofthe
thingownedincommon,insofarashisshareisconcerned.39
Finally,noprescriptionshallruninfavorofoneoftheco
heirsagainsttheotherssolongasheexpresslyorimpliedly
recognizesthecoownership.40
_______________
37CIVILCODE ,Article486.
Each coowner may use the thing owned in common, provided he
does so in accordance with the purpose for which it is intended and in
suchawayasnottoinjuretheinterestofthecoownershiporprevent
theothercoownersfromusingitaccordingtotheirrights.Thepurpose
ofthecoownershipmaybechangedbyagreement,expressorimplied.
38CIVILCODE ,Article493.
Each coowner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate,
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of
the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the coowners, shall be
limitedtotheportionwhichmaybeallotedtohiminthedivisionupon
theterminationofthecoownership.
39CIVILCODE ,Article494,firstparagraph.
Nocoownershallbeobligedtoremaininthecoownership.Eachco
owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in
common,insofarashisshareisconcerned.
40CIVILCODE ,Article494,fifthparagraph.
422

422

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

For prescription to set in, the


repudiation must be done by a
coowner.
Timeandagain,ithasbeenheldthatacoownercannot
acquire by prescription the share of the other coowners,
absent any clear repudiation of the coownership. In order
that the title may prescribe in favor of a coowner, the
following requisites must concur: (1) the coowner has
performedunequivocalactsofrepudiationamountingtoan
ouster of the other coowners; (2) such positive acts of
repudiationhavebeenmadeknowntotheothercoowners;
and(3)theevidencethereofisclearandconvincing.41
Fromtheforegoingpronouncements,itisclearthatthe
trialcourterredinreckoningtheprescriptiveperiodwithin
whichLeonardomayseekpartitionfromthedeathofLeon
in 1962. Article 1141 and Article 494 (fifth paragraph)
providethatprescriptionshallbegintoruninfavorofaco
owner and against the other coowners only from the time
hepositivelyrenouncesthecoownershipandmakesknown
hisrepudiationtotheothercoowners.
Lucimo Sr. challenged Leonardos coownership of the
propertyonlysometimein1979and1980,whentheformer
executedtheAffidavitofOwnershipofLand,obtainedanew

tax declaration exclusively in his name, and informed the


latter before the Lupon Tagapamayapa of his 1943
purchaseoftheproperty.Theseapparentactsofrepudiation
were followed later on by Lucimo Sr.s act of withholding
Leonardosshareinthefruitsoftheproperty,beginningin
1988, as Leonardo himself claims in his Amended
Complaint. Considering these facts, the CA held that
prescriptionbegantorun
_______________
Noprescriptionshallruninfavorofacoownerorcoheiragainsthis
coowners or coheirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes
thecoownership.
41 Robles v. Court of Appeals, 384 Phil. 635, 649650; 328 SCRA 97,
110111(2000).
423

VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013

423

Ining vs. Vega


againstLeonardoonlyin1979orevenin1980whenit
hasbeenmadesufficientlycleartohimthatLucimoSr.has
renouncedthecoownershipandhasclaimedsoleownership
overtheproperty.TheCAthusconcludedthatthefilingof
CivilCaseNo.5275in1997,orjustunder20yearscounted
from 1979, is clearly within the period prescribed under
Article1141.
What escaped the trial and appellate courts notice,
however, is that while it may be argued that Lucimo Sr.
performedactsthatmaybecharacterizedasarepudiation
of the coownership, the fact is, he is not a coowner of the
property.Indeed,heisnotanheirofGregoria;heismerely
Antipolossoninlaw,beingmarriedtoAntipolosdaughter
Teodora.42UndertheFamilyCode,familyrelations,which
is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations by
affinity.
Art.150.Familyrelationsincludethose:
(1)Betweenhusbandandwife;
(2)Betweenparentsandchildren;
(3)Amongotherascendantsanddescendants;and
(4)Amongbrothersandsisters,whetherofthefullorhalfblood.

Inpointoflaw,therefore,LucimoSr.isnotacoownerof
the property; Teodora is. Consequently, he cannot validly
effectarepudiationofthecoownership,whichhewasnever
partof.Forthisreason,prescriptiondidnotrunadversely
against Leonardo, and his right to seek a partition of the
propertyhasnotbeenlost.
Likewise, petitioners argument that Leonardos
admission and acknowledgment in his pleadings that
LucimoSr.wasinpossessionofthepropertysince1943
should be taken against him, is unavailing. In 1943, Leon
remainedtheright
_______________
42Rollo,p.294.

424

424

SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega

fulowneroftheland,andLucimoSr.knewthisverywell,
beingmarriedtoTeodora,daughterofAntipolo,anephewof
Leon. More significantly, the property, which is registered
undertheTorrenssystemandcoveredbyOCTRO630,isin
Leons name. Leons ownership ceased only in 1962, upon
his death when the property passed on to his heirs by
operationoflaw.
In fine, since none of the coowners made a valid
repudiation of the existing coownership, Leonardo could
seekpartitionofthepropertyatanytime.
WHEREFORE, the Petition is DENIED. The assailed
March 14, 2006 Decision and the September 7, 2006
ResolutionoftheCourtofAppealsinCAG.R.CVNo.74687
are AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.
Carpio (Chairperson), Brion, PerezandPerlasBernabe,
JJ.,concur.
Petition denied, judgment and resolution affirmed.
Notes.The rights to a persons succession are
transmittedfromthemomentofhisdeath;Theinheritance
ofapersonconsistsofthepropertyandtransmissiblerights
andobligationsexistingatthetimeofhisdeathaswellas
those which have accrued thereto since the opening of the
succession.(Balus vs. Balus,610SCRA178[2010])
Thedeterminationastotheexistenceofcoownershipis
necessary in the resolution of an action for partition.
(Lacbayan vs. Samoy, Jr.,645SCRA677[2011])
o0o

Copyright 2015 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

You might also like