G.R. No. 261323 - Verga vs. Harbor Star

Justo Laguna was the absolute owner in his lifetime of two parcels of land.
He died intestate on May 6, 1925, leaving behind his children – notably, Bonifacio and Vivencia – while another son, Pantaleon, had predeceased him, leaving a daughter (Andrea) who in turn predeceased, leaving a son, Esteban Laguna Fabie.

Within a month after Bonifacio’s death on May 28, 1929 (in which he died intestate without direct descendants and was survived only by his wife, Ambrosia Levantino), an extrajudicial agreement was reached.
Two deeds of partition were executed:

Exhibit A: Executed by Vivencia and Esteban Laguna Fabie, aimed at dividing properties left by the deceased Justo Laguna.
Exhibit B: Executed by Ambrosia Levantino and Vivencia Laguna, intended to partition the properties left by the deceased Bonifacio Laguna.

The two parcels of land in controversy were erroneously included in Exhibit B, based on Vivencia’s mistaken belief that these were conjugal properties of Bonifacio and Ambrosia.

Six years after the extrajudicial partition, upon discovering the error, Vivencia Laguna instituted an action in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan to recover the incorrectly assigned portion of land.
The trial court rendered a judgment declaring the partition null and void and adjudicated that the two parcels were the exclusive property of Vivencia Laguna.

The deceased Bonifacio had acquired a perfected title to the two parcels through prescription, having declared them for tax purposes since 1914.
Vivencia’s cause of action for rescission of the partition had prescribed.
Vivencia was estopped from challenging the partition on the ground that she had signed the deed.

It was established that Bonifacio’s possession of the land during Justo’s lifetime was in a trustee capacity and not as an independent adverse possessor.
Legal principles were discussed that possession by a trustee is akin to possession by the cestui que trust, and therefore cannot serve as a basis for acquiring title by prescription absent clear acts of ouster.
Mere acts such as declaring the land for tax purposes, perception of rents, or minor improvements (e.g., erecting fences) do not constitute unequivocal repudiation of the trust.

Whether Bonifacio’s declaration of the parcels in his own name for tax purposes constitutes an act of adverse possession sufficient to acquire a perfected title by prescription.
Whether the extrajudicial partition, particularly the deed executed by Ambrosia Levantino and Vivencia Laguna, is valid given the error in including property that was not part of Bonifacio’s conjugal partnership.
Whether Vivencia Laguna’s action to revoke the partition is correctly characterized as an action of revindication (aimed at recovering property from a void partition) rather than rescission of a valid partition, and if so, whether the prescriptive period applicable is ten years instead of six.
Whether the signing of the partition deed by Vivencia necessarily results in estoppel, thereby barring her from challenging its validity despite the error on which the partition rested.