Title
Supreme Court
Co Giok Lun vs. Jose Co
Case
G.R. No. 184454
Decision Date
Aug 3, 2011
The case involves a dispute over two lots co-owned by Lun and Fieng. The Court of Appeals ruled that Fieng is the exclusive owner, dismissing Lun's claims of co-ownership and partition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 184454)

Petitioners' Claims

The Petitioners assert that Lun and Fieng arrived in the Philippines from China in 1929 and acquired the properties using inherited capital from their father, Co Chaco. The Gubat property, mentioned to contain 720.68 square meters, was reportedly placed under Fieng's name according to a customary practice in China. The Barcelona property was acquired by Co Chaco in 1923. The Petitioners argue that Lun made significant financial contributions towards the properties, including paying realty taxes and conducting repairs. They state that while there were intentions to partition the properties in 1946, this was halted by their mother to maintain family unity. They claim Lun supported Fieng financially during various business ventures without repayment, further establishing a claim of co-ownership.

Respondents' Counterclaim

Conversely, the Respondents assert that the Gubat property was solely owned by Fieng, who allegedly purchased it from Rocha in 1935. They provide documentation indicating Fieng constructed a commercial building and conducted business on the property. The Respondents maintain that Lun was never actively involved in the acquisition of either property and that Fieng’s ownership was well-documented through tax declarations and sales contracts. They argue that Lun had only managed the properties as an administrator, particularly after Fieng's death in 1958.

Regional Trial Court's Ruling

The Regional Trial Court (RTC) initially sided with the Petitioners, recognizing their claims and establishing co-ownership based on the documentary evidence submitted. In its ruling, the RTC acknowledged that although the properties were in Fieng's name, the evidence pointed to a joint ownership based on contributions and historical context.

Court of Appeals' Ruling

Upon appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, asserting exclusive ownership of the properties by Fieng and his heirs. The CA determined that the Petitioners failed to substantiate their claims of co-ownership with sufficient evidence, highlighting the lack of credible documentation supporting the alleged business partnership between Lun and Fieng, and emphasized that Lun’s actions did not reflect ownership but rather a role as an administrator.

Issue Before the Supreme Court

The primary issue was whether the CA erred in its conclusion that there was no co-ownership and in declaring Fieng as the exclusive owner of the properties.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Su

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources. AI digests are study aids only—use responsibly.