G.R. No. 195198 - Po vs. Department of Justice

Case Summary (G.R. No. 195198)

Petitioners’ Claim

Petitioners sought reconveyance and/or partition of Lot No. 7758 and annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 3009 issued in the name of Galileo Delima, alleging co‑ownership as heirs of Lino Delima and asserting entitlement to pro‑indiviso shares.

Respondents’ Claim

Respondents (through Galileo during his lifetime) asserted exclusive ownership of the property, relying on the issuance of TCT No. 3009 in Galileo’s name, his payment of the outstanding purchase balance and realty taxes, and alleged relinquishment or waiver of rights by the other heirs.

Key Dates and Procedural Milestones

Lino Delima died in 1921.
TCT No. 2744 in the name of “The Legal Heirs of Lino Delima, deceased, represented by Galileo Delima” was issued on August 3, 1953.
Galileo executed an extrajudicial declaration of heirs on September 22, 1953; TCT No. 2744 was cancelled and TCT No. 3009 issued in Galileo’s name on February 4, 1954.
Galileo declared the lot for taxation and paid taxes (noted for the period 1954–1965).
Petitioners filed suit for reconveyance/partition and annulment of TCT No. 3009 on February 29, 1968.
Trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners on January 16, 1970, declaring co‑ownership and ordering cancellation of TCT No. 3009.
Court of Appeals reversed on May 19, 1977, upholding Galileo’s exclusive claim.
The Supreme Court rendered the decision under review on September 24, 1991.

Applicable Law

1987 Philippine Constitution (applicable because the decision date is after 1990).
Civil Code — Article 494 regarding the right of co‑owners to demand partition, agreements to keep property undivided, and the rule that no prescription shall run in favor of a co‑owner against co‑owners so long as he recognizes the co‑ownership.
Controlling jurisprudence cited in the decision: Bargayo v. Camumot; Segura v. Segura; Del Blanco v. Intermediate Appellate Court; De Castro v. Echarri; De los Santos v. Santa Teresa; Valdez v. Olorga; Pangan v. Court of Appeals; Castillo v. Court of Appeals; Jaramil v. Court of Appeals.

Established Factual Background

Lino Delima acquired Lot No. 7758 by sale on installment from the government and died leaving four heirs (Eulalio, Juanita, Galileo, and Vicente). TCT No. 2744 initially described ownership in the name of Lino’s legal heirs, represented by Galileo. By extrajudicial act and subsequent cancellation of the original title, Galileo procured issuance of a new title (TCT No. 3009) solely in his name. Petitioners later sued for partition and annulment; the trial court declared the heirs as equal co‑owners and ordered cancellation of TCT No. 3009, but the Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reviewed whether petitioners’ action was barred by prescription.

Issue Presented

Whether petitioners’ action for partition/reconveyance was barred by prescription such that Galileo’s exclusive title, asserted through issuance of TCT No. 3009 and adverse possession, had vested and excluded petitioners from their shares.

Legal Principles Applied

Article 494 of the Civil Code gives each co‑owner the right to demand partition at any time and generally precludes prescription running in favor of a co‑owner against his co‑owners while co‑ownership is recognized. Possession by a co‑owner is ordinarily for the benefit of all and is analogous to a trustee relationship; thus, adverse possession does not normally accrue against co‑heirs while the possessor recognizes the co‑ownership. However, when a co‑owner repudiates the co‑ownership and openly claims exclusive ownership, the nature of the controversy shifts from partition to ownership. The courts have held that (1) acts that unequivocally amount to ouster of co‑heirs, (2) notice of such repudiation to the co‑heirs, and (3) clear and conclusive evidence of those acts must concur to treat possession as adverse; issuance of a title in the sole name of a co‑owner has been treated as such an unequivocal repudiation. An action for reconveyance based on implied or constructive trust prescribes after ten years, and the period begins to run from the date of the effective assertion of adverse title (e.g., issuance of a sole title).

Analysis Applied to the Facts

The Court found that the cancellation of TCT No. 2744 (in the name of the legal heirs represented by Galileo) and the issuance of TCT No. 3009 in Galileo’s name constituted an open, clear, and unequivocal repudiation of the co‑ownership and of the trustee character of Galileo’s possession. That act was notice to the world and to the other hei

Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 195198)

Case Caption, Citation and Nature of Proceeding

Reported as 278 Phil. 651, First Division, G.R. No. L-46296, dated September 24, 1991.
Petition for review on certiorari from a decision of the Court of Appeals reversing the trial court’s judgment.
Parties: Petitioners are surviving heirs of Eulalio and Juanita Delima (Epitacio, Paciano, Fidel, Virgilio, Galileo Jr., Bibiano Bacus, Olimpio Bacus, Purificacion Bacus); respondents are Galileo Delima (deceased) substituted by his legal heirs (Flaviana Vda. de Delima, Lily D. Arias, Helen Niadas, Antonio Delima, Dionisio Delima, Irenea Delima, Ester Delima and Fely Delima) and Vicente Delima was a party-defendant in the trial court.

Antecedent Facts

Lot No. 7758 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate in Cebu was acquired by Lino Delima by sale on installments from the government.
Lino Delima died in 1921, leaving as his only heirs three brothers and a sister: Eulalio Delima, Juanita Delima, Galileo Delima and Vicente Delima.
On August 3, 1953, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 2744 was issued in the name of “The Legal Heirs of Lino Delima, deceased, represented by Galileo Delima.”
On September 22, 1953, Galileo Delima executed an affidavit of “Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs.”
Pursuant to that affidavit, TCT No. 2744 was cancelled and a new title, TCT No. 3009, was issued on February 4, 1954 in the name of Galileo Delima alone, to the exclusion of the other heirs.
Galileo declared the lot in his name for taxation purposes and paid the realty taxes thereon; the record states he paid taxes from 1954 to 1965 (and elsewhere references payment “since 1958” in connection with the trial court’s award).
Petitioners are the surviving heirs of Eulalio and Juanita Delima; they filed suit on February 29, 1968.

Trial Court Proceedings and Judgment

Action filed in the Court of First Instance of Cebu (now Regional Trial Court) on February 29, 1968: action for reconveyance and/or partition of property and for annulment of TCT No. 3009 with damages against Galileo Delima and Vicente Delima; Vicente was joined for refusal to join the action.
Trial court rendered judgment on January 16, 1970, in favor of petitioners. Dispositive portions as recorded:
- Declared owners of Lot No. 7758 each with a pro-indiviso one-fourth share: (1) Vicente Delima (one-fourth); (2) Heirs of Juanita Delima — Bibiano Bacus, Olimpio Bacus, Purification Bacus (one-fourth); (3) Heirs of Eulalio Delima — Epitacio, Paciano, Fidel, Virgilio and Galileo Jr. (one-fourth); (4) Heirs of Galileo Delima — Flaviana Vda. de Delima, Lily D. Arias, Helen Niadas, Dionisio, Antonio, Eotu, Irenea, and Fely (one-fourth).
- Transfer Certificate of Title No. 3009 declared null and void; Register of Deeds of Cebu ordered to cancel it and issue a new title in the names of the above heirs as pro-indiviso owners.
- After payment of taxes paid by Galileo Delima since 1958, the heirs of Galileo Delima were ordered to turn over to the other heirs their respective shares of the fruits of the lot computed at P170.00 per year up to the present time with legal interest.
- Parties ordered to partition the lot within sixty (60) days from receipt of the decision; defendants directed to immediately turn over possession of the shares awarded to the respective heirs.
- Defendants condemned to pay costs of suit; counterclaim dismissed.

Court of Appeals Ruling and Grounds for Appeal

Respondents appealed the trial court’s January 16, 1970 decision to the Court of Appeals.
On May 19, 1977, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s decision.
The Court of Appeals upheld Galileo Delima’s claim of exclusive ownership on the ground that the other siblings (Eulalio, Juanita and Vicente) had already relinquished and waived their rights in favor of Galileo, considering that Galileo alone paid the remaining balance of the purchase price of the