Title
Heirs of Jarque vs. Jarque
Case
G.R. No. 196733
Decision Date
Nov 21, 2018
Heirs of Roger Jarque contested ownership of Lot No. 2560, claiming oral partition and invalid sale by Servanda. SC ruled in their favor, invalidating respondents' claims via redemption and prescription.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 196733)

Factual Background and Initial Disposition

After Laureano's death in 1946, Roger asserted that he inherited Lot No. 2560 as part of his estate share and exercised ownership and possession. An oral partition among Laureano and Servanda's children purportedly ceded the property to Roger. Roger mortgaged the land in 1960, redeemed it, and subsequently mortgaged it again. However, his brother Lupo allegedly redeemed the property from Roger's mortgagee and maintained possession with Roger's consent. After Lupo's death and the subsequent deaths of Lupo's wife Asuncion and their child Dominga, possession passed successively to the respondents, who eventually asserted ownership. Roger and his heirs sought recovery through annulment of deeds, possession, and damages.

Petitioners’ and Respondents' Claims

Petitioners maintain that the lot belongs rightfully to them by inheritance from Laureano, supported by an alleged oral partition among Laureano's children and Roger's continuous exercise of ownership. They challenge the respondents’ claim that Servanda, as the surviving spouse, had authority to sell Lot No. 2560 to Benito Coranes with the right of repurchase and that Dominga Jarque acquired ownership by redeeming the property. Petitioners further argue that redemption is not a mode of acquisition of ownership and that respondents’ possession was based on mere tolerance, negating claims of adverse possession.

Respondents contend that Servanda managed Laureano’s properties after his death and validly sold Lot No. 2560 to Benito with a right to repurchase. Dominga redeemed the land within the stipulated time and possessed it as owner, later transferring rights to Lelia Jarque. They also claim ownership by prescription based on continuous possession since 1974.

Applicable Law and Governing Principles

Since Laureano died in 1946, the Old Civil Code of 1889 governs property relations and succession involving the conjugal partnership between Laureano and Servanda. Under this law:

  • The default property regime is the conjugal partnership of gains, which includes property acquired during marriage.
  • Upon dissolution by death, the surviving spouse is entitled to one-half of the property while the remaining half forms the hereditary estate for forced heirs.
  • Servanda is presumed to have the right to one-half as surviving spouse, while Laureano’s children inherit the other half. Servanda is also entitled to usufruct over the share of the legitimate children.

The New Civil Code, effective in 1950, governs subsequent transactions and partitions but does not alter property relations existing prior to its effectivity.

On Ownership and Partition

The Court affirmed the presumption of legal marriage between Laureano and Servanda and recognized the conjugal nature of the property. Importantly, the absence of evidence of any formal partition after Laureano’s death meant that co-ownership between Servanda and the heirs persisted. Servanda thus had no authority to sell Lot No. 2560 in its entirety absent a partition.

However, Roger’s exclusive possession and exercise of ownership over the property after Laureano’s death, including mortgaging and redeeming it, constituted a de facto oral partition. Under jurisprudence, oral partitions can be enforced where there is actual possession and acts of ownership by the respective parties over their portions. Roger’s exclusive acts effectively ended the co-ownership for Lot No. 2560 in his favor, preceding the alleged sale by Servanda.

Therefore, at the time Servanda purportedly executed a sale with right of repurchase in 1972, Roger’s exclusive ownership was already established, rendering Servanda’s unilateral sale void as to the whole property.

On Co-ownership and Alienation

In cases where co-ownership subsists, a co-owner may only alienate or mortgage their undivided share, which is an abstract or ideal portion of the property. The co-owner has no right to dispose of the whole property to the exclusion of others without partition. Servanda’s purported sale could only cover her undivided share, not the entire Lot No. 2560. No evidence showed a transfer of even her undivided share to Benito.

On Redemption and Acquisition of Ownership

The sale to Benito included a right of repurchase within two years (pacto de retro). Redemption, or repurchase, is governed by Articles 1601 and 1616 of the New Civil Code and is distinct from legal redemption under Article 1620 applicable to co-owners.

The right of repurchase vests in the original vendor or their successors, not in third parties. While the original owner may transfer this right, evidence failed to establish that Servanda transferred her right of repurchase to Dominga. The sole proof offered was Dominga’s 1991 Ratification of Ownership, executed many years after the deaths of Servanda and Dominga, which failed to substantiate the transfer of ownership.

If Dominga redeemed the property, she only restored ownership to Servanda's share, possibly acting as Servanda’s agent or as a third party paying on Servanda's behalf. Redemption by a third party grants only a lien, not ownership.

On Prescription and Possession

Respondents claim ownership by prescription, alleging continuous possession since 1974. Acquisitive prescription under Philippine law requires possession to be public, peaceful, continuous, and in the concept of owner (in good faith with just title for ordinary prescription of 10 years or adverse possession for extraordinary prescription of 30 years).

The trial courts found respondents' possession to be tolerated and in bad faith, not adverse or in the concept of owner. Roger and his heirs repeatedly asserted ownership and offered to redeem the property, negating uninterrupted adverse possession. Thus, both ordinar

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.

    About Privacy Terms