Case Digest (G.R. No. L-44546)
Facts:
Adille v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-44546, January 29, 1988, Supreme Court Second Division, Sarmiento, J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Rustico Adille (defendant below) sought review of the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial court in an action for partition with accounting brought by his half-siblings, respondents Emeteria Asejo, Teodorica Asejo, Domingo Asejo, Josefa Asejo and Santiago Asejo (plaintiffs below).The disputed property, Lot 14694 in Legaspi City (about 11,325 sq. m.), originally belonged to Felisa Alzul. She married twice: first to Bernabe Adille (with whom she had Rustico) and later to Procopio Asejo (with whom she had the Asejo respondents). In 1939 Felisa sold the land in pacto de retro (sale with right of repurchase) with a three-year redemption period; she died in 1942 without redeeming. During the redemption period Rustico redeemed the property alone, later executed an extrajudicial partition affidavit representing himself as the sole heir, and caused the Torrens title (OCT No. 21137) to be transferred into his name in 1955.
After unsuccessful attempts at compromise, the Asejo siblings filed Civil Case No. 5029 in the Court of First Instance of Albay for partition and accounting on the ground that Rustico was only a trustee when he redeemed; Rustico counterclaimed for the ejectment of Emeteria, who occupied a portion. The trial court (Presiding Judge Arsenio Solidum) found for Rustico, declared him absolute owner, dismissed the plaintiffs' case, and ordered Emeteria to vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed and ruled for the plaintiffs. Rustico petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari/appeal from the Court of Appeals' decision. The Court required a comment from the private respondents and ordere...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- May a co‑owner who redeems the entire property acquire exclusive ownership over property held in common?
- Were the private respondents' claims barred by prescription given that the Torrens title in Rustico’s name was registered in 1955 and the action was ...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)