Case Digest (G.R. No. 78178)
Facts:
Delia Bailon-Casilao, Luz Paulino-Ang, Emma Paulino-Ybanez, Nilda Paulino-Tolentino, and Sabina Bailon v. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Celestino Afable, G.R. No. 78178, April 15, 1988, Supreme Court Third Division, Cortes, J., writing for the Court.The dispute concerns a 48,849-square-meter parcel covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1771 (issued June 12, 1931) in the names of six co-owners surnamed Bailon (Rosalie, Gaudencio, Sabina, Bernabe, Nenita and Delia), each owning an undivided one-sixth share. Over time portions were sold: on August 23, 1948 Rosalia and Gaudencio sold 16,283 sq.m. to Donato Delgado; on May 13, 1949 Rosalia alone sold the remaining 32,566 sq.m. to Ponciana V. Aresgado de Lanuza; the two parcels later came into the hands of the Lanuza family and on December 3, 1975 John Lanuza (acting for his wife) sold them to Celestino Afable, Sr. The deeds misrepresented the land as unregistered although it was registered; tax declarations showed successive names through the years.
The petitioners (some representing heirs of a deceased co-owner) filed an action for recovery of property and damages with notice of lis pendens on March 13, 1981 against Afable. Afable answered asserting acquisition by prescription and laches, and filed a third-party complaint against Rosalia for damages. After trial, the Regional Trial Court (Court of First Instance) found that Afable validly bought the two one-sixth shares derived from Rosalia and Gaudencio and declared Afable and the remaining Bailons as pro-indiviso co-owners, ordered segregation/partition to terminate co-ownership, restoration of possession of the petitioners' respective shares, and awarded damages, attorney’s fees and costs.
On appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court insofar as it found Afable a co-owner and that prescription did not lie against the petitioners as co-owners of the original vendors; however, the appellate court held that although registered land cannot be lost by prescription, an action to recover it may ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the petitioners barred from recovery by the equitable doctrine of laches?
- What is the legal effect of a sale by one or more co-owners of the entire property without the consent of the other co-owners, and what is the appropriate remedy; may prescription or laches bar such a remedy in the case of registered land a...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)