Title
Ining vs. Vega
Case
G.R. No. 174727
Decision Date
Aug 12, 2013
Leonardo sought partition of Leon's estate; spurious deeds invalidated, co-ownership upheld. SC ruled no valid repudiation, affirming Leonardo's right to partition.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 174727)

Factual Background

Leon Roldan owned the subject property, covered by a Torrens title. He died in 1962 without issue. Leon was survived by siblings Romana and Gregoria. Romana was succeeded by her heirs, which include Leonardo R. Vega (now deceased) and his legal successors—the respondents. Gregoria’s heirs (petitioners) include Antipolo Ining and others. Respondents claim ownership of one-half interest as successors of Romana; petitioners claim exclusive ownership as heirs of Gregoria. Leonardo, asserting that half of the property belonged to Romana as a surviving heir, filed a partition suit in 1997 against Gregoria’s heirs and their spouses, alleging refusal to partition, illegal claim, and unauthorized sale of portions of the land by some of Gregoria’s heirs.

Proceedings and Trial Court Decision

Leonardo initiated Civil Case No. 5275 for partition, recovery of ownership, and damages. Petitioners answered, contending they acquired the property in good faith through a chain of sale from Leon to Juan Enriquez, then from Enriquez to Lucimo Francisco, Sr. (husband of petitioner Teodora), contesting Leonardo’s claim. The trial court declared the sale documents dated 1943 spurious and held that the property remained part of Leon’s estate, inherited by Romana and Gregoria equally. The trial court ruled that Leonardo’s right to partition was barred by the 30-year prescription period counted from Leon’s death in 1962, dismissing the complaint and awarding the entire property to Gregoria's heirs. The court also dismissed the counterclaims for damages. The trial court’s decision was confirmed by denial of petitioners’ motion for reconsideration.

Court of Appeals Decision

On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the trial court's dismissal. It affirmed that the property belonged equally to Romana’s and Gregoria’s heirs. The CA ruled that prescription did not run from Leon’s death in 1962 but from 1979 when Lucimo Francisco, Sr. executed an Affidavit of Ownership, obtained a tax declaration solely in his name, and repudiated co-ownership. The CA applied Article 494, fifth paragraph of the Civil Code, which states that no prescription runs against a co-owner so long as co-ownership is recognized. Since Lucimo’s repudiation in 1979 was the first unequivocal renunciation and notification of exclusive ownership, the 30-year prescriptive period started from then, and Leonardo’s 1997 suit was timely. The CA also rejected laches, holding it cannot be used inequitably to defeat justice or perpetuate fraud, and found that mere exclusive possession and payment of taxes by Lucimo Sr. did not constitute adverse possession or ouster. The CA ordered partition according to the survey report and dismissed other claims.

Issues Raised by Petitioners

Petitioners challenged the CA’s ruling on two grounds:

  1. The CA erred in holding that Lucimo Francisco repudiated co-ownership only in 1979, arguing he had effectively repudiated it since 1943 by purchase and possession.
  2. The CA erred in overruling the trial court’s dismissal based on prescription and laches.

Petitioners' Arguments

Petitioners argued that Lucimo Sr.’s 1943 purchase and possession, along with Leonardo’s acknowledgment, established adverse possession and repudiation that should have started the prescription period then. They argued Leonardo’s failure to act until 1995 amounts to laches, and the 1980 attempt to resolve the matter before the Lupon Tagapamayapa should have put Leonardo on notice to act earlier.

Respondents' Arguments

Respondents contended that the court should disregard petitioners’ procedural deficiencies regarding copies filed but mainly relied on the absence of valid repudiation by Lucimo Sr. prior to 1979, noting that co-ownership continued to subsist undisturbed legally.

Supreme Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Review on Certiorari and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court held:

  • The trial court’s finding that Leon did not sell the property was final due to petitioners’ failure to appeal; thus, the property remained part of Leon’s estate at death. Leon’s siblings Romana and Gregoria became co-owners upon his death, and their heirs likewise became co-owners undividedly.
  • Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, succession rights vest at death; hence the co-ownership arose at that time among heirs.
  • Each co-owner has the right to possess and use the property, alienate their share, and to demand partition anytime (Articles 486, 493, and 494 of the Civil Code).
  • Prescription for real actions over immovables runs in 30 years (Art. 1141, Civil Code) but the period does not run against a co-owner so long as the co-ownership is recognized (Art. 494, fifth paragraph).
  • For prescription to begin against a co-owner, there must be (1) unequivocal acts of repudiation constituting ouster; (2) knowledge of such repudiation by other co-owners; and (3) clear and convincing evidence of these acts.
  • The Court agreed with the CA that prescription began only upon Lucimo Sr.’s 1979 Affidavit of Ownership and exclusive tax declaration, which clearly repudiated co-ownership and was communicated to Leonardo. Earlier possession or claims were insufficient to commence the prescription period, especially since no valid sale by Leon occurred.
  • Crucially, the Court found Lucimo Sr. himself was not a co-owner but merely related by affinity as a son-in-law to one of Gregoria’s heirs. Under Article 150 of the Family Code, affinity relations are excluded in succession; thus, Lucimo Sr. had no right to repudiate co-ownership because he was not a co-owner.
  • Consequently, Lucimo Sr.’s acts could not start the prescriptive period against Leonardo or other heirs.
  • Leonardo’s admission of Lucimo Sr.’s possession from 1943 does not opera

...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