G.R. No. 194260 - Heirs of Yambao vs. Heirs of Yambao

The subject is a parcel of land in Barangay Bangan, Botolan, Zambales, originally in the possession of Macaria De Ocampo (Macaria).
Hermogenes Yambao (Hermogenes), Macaria’s nephew, acted as administrator of the property and paid the realty taxes. Upon his death, his eight children (Ulpiano, Dominic, Teofilo, Feliciano, Asesclo, Delia, Amelia, and Melinda) asserted rights in the property.

After Hermogenes’ death, his heirs (respondents in the petition) used the property communally and mutually, harvesting fruits and allowing family occupation; Eleanor (a granddaughter) even constructed a house on the land.
In 2005, the heirs of Feliciano (petitioners before the Supreme Court) prohibited the other heirs from entering the property and ejected Eleanor, asserting exclusive possession.

Petitioners claim their father Feliciano possessed the property in the concept of an owner since time immemorial and secured a free patent; Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10737 was issued in Feliciano’s name on November 29, 1989.
In his free patent application, Feliciano acknowledged tacking his possession from his father Hermogenes, alleging Hermogenes had possessed the property in the concept of an owner since 1944.

The heirs of Hermogenes filed in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) a complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of title/documents, and damages against the heirs of Feliciano, alleging co-ownership by inheritance from Hermogenes.
The heirs of Feliciano answered, denying co-ownership and asserting that actions questioning the validity of OCT P-10737 prescribed one year after its issuance or were otherwise barred.

The RTC (Branch 69, Iba, Zambales) rendered judgment dated December 23, 2008 dismissing the complaint; it found tax declarations and receipts in Macaria’s name were not conclusive of ownership and held that petitioners failed to prove Hermogenes’ right to succeed to Macaria’s estate.
The Court of Appeals (CA), in a decision dated October 22, 2010, reversed the RTC, finding the RTC erred in dismissing without first determining whether the property was co-owned; the CA held that Feliciano’s free-patent application showed tacking from Hermogenes and thus implied co-ownership, ordering partition proceedings.
The heirs of Feliciano elevated the matter to the Supreme Court via Rule 45 petition, contesting (a) the CA’s finding of co-ownership and (b) that ordering partition was an impermissible collateral attack on OCT No. P-10737.

Whether the subject property is co-owned by the heirs of Hermogenes and the heirs of Feliciano, based on the possession history and Feliciano’s free-patent application.

Whether the heirs of Hermogenes’ action for partition is barred by prescription in view of the issuance of OCT No. P-10737 to Feliciano on November 29, 1989.
Whether issuance of a Torrens certificate (OCT) to one co-heir constitutes an open repudiation of trust sufficient to start a prescriptive period against other co-owners.

Whether the partition action by the heirs of Hermogenes amounts to a collateral attack on the validity of OCT No. P-10737 (i.e., whether partition is an improper means to challenge Torrens title).