Facts:
Respondent
Ladislao M. Santos, represented by his attorney-in-fact
Noe M. Santos, filed a complaint for judicial partition on May 13, 1993 in the Regional Trial Court of Rizal (San Mateo) seeking division of a 391 square meter parcel formerly owned by his sister
Isidra M. Santos, who died intestate on April 1, 1967 and was survived by Ladislao and his brother
Eliseo M. Santos; petitioners
Philip C. Santos and the
Heirs of Eliseo M. Santos answered that the Isidra property had been conveyed to Eliseo under a purported 1969 Combined Deed of Partition and thereafter allegedly transferred to Virgilio Santos and later to Philip Santos by a deed dated December 16, 1980, with successive tax declarations issued in Virgilio’s and then Philip’s names; at trial neither Ladislao nor Eliseo testified, Virginia Santos (widow of Virgilio) and Philip Santos testified to the existence of the partition/transfer document and the municipal assessor, Rodolfo Bautista, testified about the annotation on the tax declaration showing cancellation and reissuance in Virgilio’s name but admitted he could not identify the particular document used; the trial court dismissed Ladislao’s complaint on the ground of failure of proof and acquisitive prescription, the Court of Appeals reversed and declared Ladislao and Eliseo each entitled to twelve pro indiviso shares in the Isidra property and ordered partition under
Rule 69, Rules of Civil Procedure, and petitioners sought review in this Court which affirmed the Court of Appeals on October 12, 2000.
Issues:
Was the transfer of the Isidra property first to Virgilio Santos and later to
Philip C. Santos validly proved by petitioners? Was the action for partition barred by ordinary acquisitive prescription or by estoppel through laches?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: