G.R. No. 174727 - Ining vs. Vega

Leon Roldan (Leon), married to Rafaela Menez (Rafaela), owned a 3,120-square meter parcel of land in Kalibo, Aklan, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. (24071) RO-630 (OCT RO-630).
Leon and Rafaela died without issue. Leon was survived by siblings Romana Roldan (Romana) and Gregoria Roldan Ining (Gregoria), both deceased at the time of the case.
Romana's heirs include her daughter Anunciacion Vega and grandson Leonardo R. Vega (deceased); Leonardo's heirs are respondents Lourdes Vega, Restonilo I. Vega, Crispulo M. Vega, Milbuena Vega-Restituto, and Lenard Vega (substituted respondents).
Gregoria’s heirs include her six children: petitioners Natividad Ining-Ibea, Dolores Ining-Rimon, Antipolo, Pedro, Jose, and Amando (deceased without issue). Natividad, Dolores, Antipolo, and Pedro are represented by their respective descendants and spouses who are petitioners herein.
The dispute involves the ownership and partition of the subject property following Leon’s death.

In 1997, Leonardo (plaintiff) filed Civil Case No. 5275 for partition, recovery of ownership and possession, alleging entitlement to one-half of the subject property as Romana’s surviving heir.
Leonardo claimed that Gregoria’s heirs refused to partition the property; portions sold to the petitioners Tresvalles and Tajonera needed collation; Lucimo Francisco Sr. (Lucimo Sr.), husband of petitioner Teodora (Antipolo's daughter), unlawfully claimed and possessed the property from 1979, transferring tax declarations in his name, depriving Leonardo of the fruits of the property.
Leonardo sought declaration of ownership of half the property, partition, damages including attorney’s fees, and other reliefs.
Petitioners (Gregoria’s heirs, including Teodora and her family) answered and counterclaimed, denying Leonardo’s cause of action, asserting sole ownership by purchase from Juan Enriquez, who purportedly bought from Leon, claiming adverse possession and payment of taxes for over 30 years, and alleging estoppel and laches against Leonardo. They prayed for dismissal and damages.
Other Gregoria heirs, Tresvalles and Tajonera, were declared in default.

Commissioned Geodetic Engineer Rafael M. Escabarte prepared and submitted a Commissioner's Report and Sketch, approved by the parties, delineating the property’s metes and bounds.
The main issues for trial were:

Leonardo died during the proceedings and was substituted by his heirs (respondents).
Additional relevant facts:

Leonardo previously filed another partition case in 1995 (Civil Case No. 4983), dismissed and referred to the Municipal Trial Court, which later dismissed it for lack of jurisdiction.
The alleged sale by Leon to Enriquez was through an unnotarized document of April 4, 1943, and Enriquez allegedly sold to Lucimo Sr. on November 25, 1943.
Petitioners were in sole possession of the property for over 30 years, while Leonardo had custody of the title.
Lucimo Sr. executed an Affidavit of Ownership in 1979, secured tax declaration No. 16414 in his name, canceling the previous tax declaration in Leon’s name.
Lucimo Sr. died in 1991.
The property was partitioned among petitioners, excluding Leonardo and heirs.

On November 19, 2001, the RTC dismissed Leonardo’s complaint on the ground of prescription under Article 1141 of the Civil Code, holding that the 30-year prescriptive period started from Leon’s death in 1962 and expired in 1992, before the 1997 filing.
The RTC declared the property co-owned solely by Gregoria’s heirs, ordering cancellation of OCT RO-630 and issuance of new titles to them.
The April 4, 1943 and November 25, 1943 deeds of sale were found spurious; hence, Leon never sold the property, and it remained part of his estate at death.
The counterclaim was dismissed for lack of evidence.
A motion for reconsideration by the respondents was denied.

The CA reversed the RTC decision, declaring the property co-owned equally by the heirs of Romana (Leonardo’s side) and Gregoria (petitioners), ordering partition accordingly.
It held that the RTC erred in ruling prescription started from Leon’s death in 1962; instead, prescription began in 1979 when Lucimo Sr. repudiated the co-ownership by executing the Affidavit of Ownership and obtaining a separate tax declaration.
The CA ruled Lucimo Sr.’s sole possession for 30 years did not prove ouster or adverse possession against Leonardo in the absence of clear notice and conclusive evidence.
Payment of taxes and partition among petitioners without Leonardo’s knowledge did not establish repudiation or extinguish Leonardo’s rights.
The CA further held that laches could not be invoked to defeat justice or deprive rightful inheritance.
Petitioners’ motion for reconsideration was denied by the CA.

The appellate court erred in holding that repudiation occurred only in 1979; Lucimo Sr.'s purchase in 1943 and possession should start the prescriptive period.
Leonardo’s delay from 1943 to 1995 in asserting his rights constituted laches and justified dismissal.

Respondents contended procedural issues regarding copies of pleadings filed but focused on maintaining that Lucimo Sr. was never a co-owner and thus could not repudiate co-ownership before 1979.

Whether the trial court erred in dismissing Leonardo’s complaint for partition on the ground of prescription, reckoning the prescriptive period from Leon’s death in 1962.

Whether Lucimo Sr.’s alleged purchase and possession since 1943 constituted repudiation of co-ownership that triggered prescription against Leonardo.

Whether Leonardo’s claim was barred by laches due to delay in asserting his rights.

Whether one related merely by affinity (Lucimo Sr., son-in-law) is a co-owner capable of repudiating co-ownership.