Case Summary (G.R. No. 194260)
Facts of the Case
The land was originally possessed by Macaria De Ocampo, Hermogenes’ aunt. Upon Hermogenes’ death, his heirs, including Feliciano, claimed communal ownership, using the property, harvesting its fruits, and constructing dwellings. Feliciano was awarded a free patent on the land and issued the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10737 in 1989. The respondents later filed a complaint for partition and nullity of title, asserting co-ownership through inheritance. The petitioners denied these claims, insisting Feliciano had sole ownership since time immemorial and that the complaint was barred by prescription.
Regional Trial Court’s Ruling
The RTC dismissed the complaint, reasoning that tax declarations and receipts in Macaria’s name did not prove her ownership, and that Hermogenes did not have a right to succeed over Macaria’s estate. Therefore, the respondents failed to prove co-ownership or a right to partition.
Court of Appeals’ Decision
The CA reversed the RTC’s dismissal, holding that the RTC erred in not first determining whether co-ownership existed. The CA found from the records that Feliciano’s claim of possession originated from Hermogenes’ prior possession in the concept of owner since 1944, implying co-ownership rather than sole ownership. The CA ordered the RTC to proceed with appropriate partition proceedings, thereby recognizing co-ownership as a valid issue in the case.
Supreme Court’s Analysis: Co-Ownership and Possession
The Supreme Court affirmed the CA’s ruling, emphasizing that possession tacking by Feliciano from Hermogenes amounted to implicit acknowledgment of co-ownership among heirs. It held that co-ownership creates a fiduciary relationship akin to a trust, where each co-owner is a trustee for the others. Mere possession by one co-owner does not constitute adverse possession over the others absent clear repudiation.
Prescription in Co-Ownership Cases
The Court clarified that prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner unless the possession is adverse, open, continuous, and exclusive, supported by unequivocal acts of ouster or repudiation manifestly known to the other co-owner(s), and backed by clear and convincing evidence. Moreover, the right to demand partition among co-owners is imprescriptible; a co-owner may demand partition at any time.
Effect of Torrens Title Issuance on Prescription and Ownership
Issuance of a certificate of title is considered an open and clear repudiation of any implied trust, thus starting a ten-year prescriptive period to demand partition, counted from the issuance date. However, this prescriptive period does not run if the co-owner asserting partition rights remains in actual possession. In this case, although OCT No. P-10737 was issued to Feliciano in 1989, the respondents were still in possession until 2005, when they were excluded by the petitioners. Hence, the right to demand partition had not prescribed.
Nature of the Action and Collateral Attack Allegation
The petitioners’ argument that the partition complaint was a collateral attack on the Torrens title was rejected. The Court explained that the complaint sought recognition of co-ownership and partition of shares, not annulment or cancellation of the certificate of title. The respondents did not allege fraud, mistake, or irregularity in the issuance of the title but relied on the co-ownership relationship. Such action does not invalidate the title but merely enforces partition rights among co-owners.
Implied Trust Created by Registration in One Co-Owner’s Name
The Court recognized that registration of property under Feliciano’s name, excluding other heirs, created an implied trust whereby he serves as trustee for the undivided shares of the other co-owners. Binding legal principle
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 194260)
Parties and Procedural Posture
- Petitioners: Heirs of Feliciano Yambao (Chona Yambao, Joel Yambao, Willy Yambao, Lennie Yambao, Richard Yambao, and all others acting under their authority).
- Respondents: Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao (Eleanor Yambao, Alberto Yambao, Dominic Yambao, Asesclo Yambao, Gerald Dantic, and Maria Pilar Yambao, represented by attorney-in-fact Maria Pilar Yambao).
- The case is a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.
- The petition contests the decision rendered by the Court of Appeals on October 22, 2010, which reversed and set aside the Regional Trial Court’s December 23, 2008 decision dismissing the complaint filed by respondents.
- Case reference numbers: G.R. No. 194260; CA-G.R. CV No. 92755; RTC-88-I, Branch 69, Iba, Zambales.
- Supreme Court Resolution issued on April 13, 2016, affirmed the CA decision, denying the petition.
Facts of the Case
- The dispute concerns a parcel of land located in Barangay Bangan, Botolan, Zambales originally possessed by Macaria De Ocampo.
- Hermogenes Yambao, Macaria’s nephew, acted as administrator of the property and paid realty taxes.
- Hermogenes had eight children (Ulpiano, Dominic, Teofilo, Feliciano, Asesclo, Delia, Amelia, Melinda) all surnamed Yambao.
- After Hermogenes’ death, all his heirs allegedly had communal and mutual rights to pick and harvest fruit and utilize the property.
- Eleanor Yambao, daughter of Ulpiano, built a house thereon.
- In 2005, the heirs of Feliciano prohibited the respondents and other co-heirs from entering the property and ejected Eleanor.
- In response, respondents filed with the RTC a complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of title/documents, and damages.
- Respondents alleged co-ownership inherited from Hermogenes.
- Petitioners (heirs of Feliciano) denied co-ownership, claiming Feliciano’s sole possession since time immemorial, supported by a free patent issued under Original Certificate of Title No. P-10737.
- Petitioners argued the respondents’ cause of action was prescribed after one year from the issuance of the OCT on November 29, 1989.
RTC’s Decision and Reasoning
- RTC dismissed respondents’ complaint for partition.
- Held that respondents failed to prove ownership by Macaria despite tax declarations and receipts.
- Held no evidence showing Hermogenes had right to succeed Macaria’s estate.
- Found respondent’s claims insufficient to establish co-ownership or entitlement to partition.
Court of Appeals’ Decision and Rationale
- CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision.
- Found that RTC prematurely dismissed the complaint without establishing whether the parties were co-owners.
- Cited evidence in Feliciano’s free patent application affirming Hermogenes’ possession of the property "in peaceful, open, continuous, and adverse manner and in the concept of an owner since 1944."
- Concluded that Feliciano’s claim did not extinguish co-ownership claims by Hermogenes’ other heir