Professional Documents
Culture Documents
VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013
407
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
VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013
409
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
412
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega
VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013
413
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
VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013
415
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
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
Our Ruling
TheCourtdeniesthePetition.
_______________
35Id.,atpp.259275.
36Id.,atpp.272273.
420
420
SUPREMECOURTREPORTSANNOTATED
Ining vs. Vega
VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013
421
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
VOL.703,AUGUST12,2013
423
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