Title
Segura vs. Segura
Case
G.R. No. L-29320
Decision Date
Sep 19, 1988
Heirs excluded from an extrajudicial partition sought recovery of their shares in a disputed property, but their claim was barred by prescription due to the 10-year prescriptive period for reconveyance, starting from the repudiation of an implied trust in 1953. The partition was deemed invalid as it excluded some heirs.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29320)

Origin of the Dispute

The conflict centers on an extrajudicial partition executed on April 6, 1941, by three grandchildren of Gertrudes Zamora—Nicolas, Santiago, and Gaudencio Segura—who excluded six other grandchildren from the partition. This partition was only registered in 1946, and subsequently, the land was sold to Emiliano Amojido with a right to repurchase, which was not exercised. The property changed hands several times thereafter, with subsequent transactions lacking the inclusion of the excluded heirs, leading to legal complications.

Legal Proceedings

The plaintiffs filed Civil Case No. 3941 in 1956 for recovery of possession, which was dismissed in 1958 on the grounds of lack of prosecution. They later filed a new complaint on January 11, 1968, denouncing the prior partition as void due to their exclusion. The defendants moved to dismiss this complaint, arguing it was barred by prior judgment and that the action had prescribed under the Civil Code and the Rules of Court, a claim the plaintiffs opposed.

Dismissal of the Complaint

The trial court dismissed the 1968 complaint on March 28, 1968, citing prescription as the invalidation of the prior extrajudicial partition should have been asserted within two years of its execution, thus precluding the current action filed fifteen years later. The court later denied a motion for reconsideration on May 28, 1968, further asserting the ground of res judicata.

Analysis of Res Judicata and Prescription

The Supreme Court found no grounds for res judicata as the earlier dismissal did not preclude future actions. However, the analysis concerning prescription was complex. The court upheld that the right to challenge the extrajudicial partition under Rule 74, Section 4 of the Rules of Court indeed necessitated a claim within two years from 1941. Nonetheless, as the partition was deemed invalid concerning other heirs, the two-year prescription did not apply to the plaintiffs.

Consideration of Co-Ownership Rights

The court further deliberated that ownership rights over property require valid co-ownership transfers. The defendants cited articles from the Civil Code stating ownership can be acquired through adverse possession. The court noted that as the partition was null for excluding heirs, transfers based on it were invalid. The annotation on the title secured by Amojido recognizing the claims of other heirs exemplified that any period of prescription did not commence until he repudiated those claims.

Repudiation and Commencement of Prescription

The court established that the prescriptive period effectively began once the titl

...continue reading

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