Case Summary (G.R. No. 161720)
Background and Initial Possession
In 1960, Flores Restar, using a Joint Affidavit executed in 1959 with Helen Restar, caused the cancellation of Tax Declaration No. 6696 issued in Emilio Restar’s name and secured Tax Declaration No. 11134 in his own name, effectively claiming ownership over the entire lot. Flores died in 1989. The co-heirs of Flores’ siblings discovered the cancellation and transfer of tax declaration only in 1998, prompting them to file a complaint for partition, nullity of documents, ownership, damages, and preliminary injunction in 1999.
Claims of the Parties
The plaintiffs (respondents), heirs of Flores’ siblings, claimed that during Flores’ lifetime and even after his death until 1991, they received palay shares from the lot. They asserted that Flores’ widow Esmenia had requested to retain possession of the land to finance their children’s education, subject to eventual division into eight equal parts. Upon their demand for partition, Flores’ heirs allegedly refused to divide the property.
Conversely, the defendants (petitioners), heirs of Flores, claimed continuous, open, and exclusive possession of the lot in the concept of owner for over thirty years and payment of realty taxes since time immemorial. They denied sharing the produce with other co-heirs and contended the children’s education had concluded by 1977. Additional defenses included claims of a prior extrajudicial partition and separate conveyance of a portion of the lot to one of the heirs, Policarpio.
Trial Court Findings
The Regional Trial Court (RTC) held Flores’ share was not the disputed lot but a different cadastral lot. Nevertheless, the court found that Flores and his heirs had repudiated the co-ownership by exercising exclusive possession, such that they acquired ownership by acquisitive prescription (adverse possession). The court also rejected Policarpio Restar’s claim to a portion of the lot since the alleged deed bore inconsistent signatures and the grantor’s infirmity cast doubt on authenticity. The complaint was dismissed in favor of Flores’ heirs.
Appellate Court Decision
The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, ruling that the heirs of Flores failed to prove possession excluding other co-owners or derivation of title from Restar. The CA found no sufficient notice of repudiation of co-ownership to other heirs nor a clear assertion of exclusive ownership. The CA also credited the explanation for plaintiffs' failure to act immediately as forbearance toward Flores’ family. The CA rejected the sale claim of Policarpio. The Court of Appeals thereby denied acquisition of ownership by prescription to the heirs of Flores.
Issues Presented on Review
The pivotal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership of the land by adverse possession (extraordinary prescription), despite the transfer of tax declaration in Flores' name, and whether the possession was exclusive, open, continuous, and notorious excluding co-owners.
Applicable Law and Legal Principles
- Under Article 494 of the New Civil Code, no co-owner is compelled to remain in co-ownership; each may demand partition at any time.
- Prescription cannot run against co-owners as long as co-ownership is recognized explicitly or implicitly.
- Acquisitive prescription can be ordinary (10 years, possession in good faith with just title) or extraordinary (30 years, possession adverse, continuous, and notorious without need of good faith or title).
- To perfect acquisitive prescription by co-owner, there must be clear repudiation of co-ownership with notice to other co-owners.
Supreme Court’s Analysis on Possession and Prescription
The Supreme Court emphasized that the 30-year prescription period for adverse possession began in 1960 when Flores caused the cancellation of the tax declaration in Restar’s name and obtained one in his name, evidencing repudiation of co-ownership. The other heirs were deemed to have knowledge of the adverse claim as of that date.
The Court found that while respondents had no possession or assertive claims until the filing of the complaint in 1999, Flores had possession over the lot since Restar’s death, exercising acts of ownership such as cultivating the land, paying taxes, excluding other co-owners, and deriving benefits.
The Court upheld the RTC’s finding that the so-called sharing of produce by Flores with his co-heirs was insubstantial, not constituting recognition of co-ownership. The quantity alleged failed to equal their pro indiviso shares and was thus disregarded as a mere gesture rather than acknowledgment of joint ownership.
Evidentiary Weight of Tax Declarations and Acts of Possession
Although tax declarations and payment of taxes are not conclusive proof of ownership, when combined with open, continuous, and exclusive possession, they constitute strong evidence supporting acquisition by prescription.
The Court noted the acts by Flores—cancellation of tax declaration in the name of the father, obtaining new declaration in his own name,
...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 161720)
Parties and Procedural History
- Petitioners are the Heirs of Flores Restar, namely Esmenia R. Restar, Bernardita R. Rentino, Lucia Restar, Rodolfo Restar, Janet R. Relojero, Lorna R. Ramos, Manuel Restar, Nenita R. Belleza, Mirasol R. Dela Cruz, Roselle R. Matorre, Policarpio Restar, and Adolfo Restar.
- Respondents include the Heirs of Dolores R. Cichon, Perpetua R. Sta. Maria, Maria R. Rose, and the surviving sisters Dominica Restar-Relojero and Paciencia Restar-Manares.
- The case involves a dispute over a 5,918 square meter parcel of land (Lot 3177) left by Emilio Restar who died intestate in 1935, dividing the estate among his eight children who became co-owners.
- In 1960, Flores Restar, the eldest child, caused the cancellation of the original tax declaration in his father's name and secured Tax Declaration No. 11134 in his own name based on a 1959 joint affidavit with Helen Restar.
- The co-heirs of Flores Restar discovered the cancellation in 1998, and in 1999 filed a complaint for partition, nullification of documents, declaration of ownership, damages, and preliminary injunction.
- The trial court ruled in favor of the heirs of Flores, concluding they had acquired ownership by prescription despite findings that the lot was not Flores' original share.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding there was no sufficient proof of adverse possession and repudiation of co-ownership.
- The Supreme Court granted the petition filed by the heirs of Flores Restar to resolve the conflict.
Factual Background and Claims of the Parties
- Emilio Restar died in 1935 leaving eight compulsory heirs who inherited the land as co-owners.
- Flores Restar exercised acts of ownership over the disputed lot from 1960, including tilling, cultivating, paying taxes, and improving the land.
- The co-heirs claimed they were given shares of palay from the lot during Flores’ lifetime and after his death as a familial accommodation.
- Petitioners denied sharing the produce, questioned the credibility of the alleged sale to Policarpio Restar, citing discrepancies in the signature on the Deed of Sale.
- Petitioners further argued that the 1960 transfer of tax declaration marked a repudiation of co-ownership constituting adverse possession beginning on that date.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership of the disputed lot through extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
- Whether there was repudiation of co-ownership by adverse possession by the heirs of Flores Restar.
- The effect of the issuance of a tax declaration in Flores Restar’s name on the running of prescription.
- Whether the alleged sharing of produce refuted the claim of exclusive possession.
- The validity of the purported sale of a portion of the lot to Policarpio Restar.
Applicable Legal Principles
- Article 494, New Civil Code: No co-owner is obliged to remain in co-ownership; any co-owner may demand partition at any time; prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner against co-owners if co-ownership is recognized explicitly or implicitly.
- Repudiation of co-ownership requires clear and explicit or implied ac