Case Summary (G.R. No. 206766)
Procedural History
The private respondents sued in 1974 for co-ownership partition and reimbursement. The trial court ruled Rustico sole owner, dismissed partition, and ordered Emeteria’s eviction. On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that co-ownership remained and declared Rustico a trustee for his siblings. Rustico then petitioned this Court via certiorari.
Issue Presented
Whether a co-owner who redeems the entirety of a common property may acquire exclusive ownership, extinguishing the rights of other co-owners and avoiding partition.
Parties’ Contentions
Petitioner (Rustico) argued that under Civil Code Article 1613 (formerly 1515), a vendee a retro may demand redemption of the entire property and retain title if co-owners fail to redeem within the period, thereby consolidating exclusive ownership. Respondents contended that one co-owner can only redeem his proportional share, that redemption expenses are reimbursable by co-owners, that co-ownership persisted, and that Rustico’s fraudulent misrepresentation imposed an implied trust.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Co-ownership and Redemption Rights
The Court reiterated that a co-owner may only redeem his undivided interest; single-party redemption of the whole does not terminate co-ownership (Civil Code Arts. 488, 489). Although a vendee a retro may not be compelled to accept partial redemption (Art. 1613), this does not confer ownership of the entire estate upon one co-owner. Necessary expenses are recoverable pro rata, but the underlying co-ownership endures until partition, merger, loss, or prescription.
Assessment of Fraud and Trust Relationship
Rustico’s extrajudicial settlement affidavit falsely declaring sole heirship constituted fraud under Civil Code Article 1456. Registration of Torrens title does not legitimize fraud. The Court agreed with the appellate finding that Rustico holds the property in implied trust for his co-heirs; his concealment and unilateral title consolidation betrayed an intent to defraud.
Prescription and Repudiation of Co-ownership
Prescription as a mode of terminating co-ownership requires clear repudiation, notice to co-owners, exclusive possession, and the statutory period. Rustico failed to repudiate openly—he concealed his siblings’ interests and did
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 206766)
Antecedent Facts
- The land in dispute is Lot 14694 of the Cadastral Survey of Albay, Legaspi City, with an area of approximately 11,325 square meters.
- Originally owned by Felisa Alzul as her private property.
- Felisa married first Bernabe Adille and bore Rustico Adille; she married second Procopio Asejo and bore Emeteria, Teodorica, Domingo, Josefa, and Santiago Asejo.
- In 1939, Felisa sold the property in pacto de retro with a three-year period of repurchase.
- Felisa died in 1942 without redeeming within the stipulated period.
- During the redemption period, Rustico alone repurchased the entire property, shouldering all expenses.
- Rustico executed an extrajudicial partition affidavit, declaring himself sole heir and child of Felisa, and secured transfer of OCT No. 21137 to his name in 1955.
- The half-siblings filed a complaint for partition with accounting; Emeteria occupied a portion, prompting Rustico’s counterclaim for ejectment.
Proceedings Below
- Trial Court (CI Albay, Civil Case No. 5029): Ruled Rustico an absolute owner, dismissed plaintiffs’ case for partition and accounting, and ordered Emeteria to vacate.
- Court of Appeals: Reversed the Trial Court; held that Rustico held the property in trust for his co-heirs and granted partition relief.
- Supreme Court of the Philippines: Took cognizance by certiorari, received petitioner’s brief, declared case submitted when private respondents failed to file.
Issue
- Whether a co-owner who alone rede