Heirs of Catalino Jardin v. Heirs of Sixto Hallasgo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs, heirs of Catalino and Galo Jardin, filed a complaint in 1973 against defendants, heirs of Sixto Hallasgo, to enforce a 1920 partition of unregistered lands inherited from Braulio Jardin and Maura Hallasgo. The spouses were survived by Catalino, Galo, and Sixto (Maura's son by a first marriage). The 1920 private partition document divided various properties among Catalino, Galo, and Sixto. Subsequently, Galo ceded his share of a poblacion lot to Catalino, making Catalino the owner of 990 square meters. In 1963, Sixto was allowed by Catalino's children to use 350 square meters of this lot as a garden. In 1964, Sixto fraudulently included this portion in his cadastral survey without the knowledge of Catalino's children. After the deaths of Catalino and Galo, Sixto allegedly took advantage of the minority of their children and occupied lands adjudicated to Catalino and Galo in the 1920 partition, using them without sharing harvests. The heirs of Catalino and Galo only learned of the 1920 partition in 1973 during a confrontation regarding the 350-square-meter portion. They discovered that Sixto and his children had been in possession of their parents' shares for a long time, and Sixto's heirs refused amicable settlement. Procedural History: Plaintiffs prayed for reconveyance of lands allocated to their parents in the 1920 partition, the 350-square-meter portion fraudulently included in the cadastral survey, and damages. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the trial court granted on the ground of prescription, citing Bargayo vs. Camumot. Plaintiffs appealed, arguing their action had not prescribed and the dismissal lacked factual basis. Defendants did not file a brief. The Petition: Plaintiffs contend that their action had not prescribed and that the dismissal was without factual basis. They invoke the rule that actions for partition among co-heirs do not prescribe and that a co-owner's possession is not adverse to other co-owners as long as co-ownership is recognized.
Issue(s)
Whether the heirs of Catalino and Galo Jardin's action for reconveyance has prescribed regarding the lands adjudicated in the 1920 partition. Whether the heirs of Catalino and Galo Jardin's action for reconveyance has prescribed regarding the 350-square-meter portion of the poblacion lot, and whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription.
Ruling
The trial court's judgment is affirmed with the modification that the plaintiffs' action for the recovery of the 350-square-meter portion of the poblacion lot may be maintained. The defendants-appellees should answer that part of the complaint referring to that lot. No costs.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription for the lands adjudicated in the 1920 partition: The Court found the plaintiffs' contentions flimsy and untenable. The complaint lacked specific dates regarding the deaths of Galo and Catalino, the ages of their heirs, and the exact date of Sixto's alleged usurpation. The 1920 partition document itself indicated implementation, particularly concerning the poblacion lot and other parcels clearly adjudicated to Galo and Catalino. The Court reasoned that if the partition was enforced for some properties, it would likely have been for others as well, negating co-ownership for those specific lands. The only lands potentially held in co-ownership were the Camposanto cornland and Calabugon riceland, but the complaint did not specify when Sixto repudiated this co-ownership. Applying Article 494 of the Civil Code, while an action for partition does not prescribe as long as co-ownership is recognized, a co-owner may repudiate co-ownership, after which an action for recovery of title and possession (accion reivindicatoria) may be brought, which is subject to prescription. Given the 1920 partition and the lack of specific allegations on repudiation, the trial court correctly assumed prescription began to run, and the 1973 action was barred by the ten-year prescriptive period under the Code of Civil Procedure. On the issue of the 350-square-meter portion of the poblacion lot: The Court ruled that the action for recovery of this portion has not prescribed. The Court characterized Sixto's use of this land as a loan of use (commodatum or precanum) from his nephews and nieces. Sixto's alleged fraudulent inclusion of this portion in his cadastral survey, in grievous violation of the trust, did not extinguish the right of Catalino's children to recover it. The Court reasoned that the nature of the possession changed from a loan of use to a fraudulent appropriation, and the action to recover property obtained through fraud, especially when it involves a breach of trust, is generally not subject to the same prescriptive periods as ordinary property disputes arising from co-ownership. Therefore, the trial court erred in dismissing this part of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
An action for recovery of title and possession, arising from repudiation of co-ownership, may be barred by prescription, unlike an action for partition which does not prescribe as long as co-ownership is recognized. However, an action for recovery of property fraudulently included in a cadastral survey, based on a loan of use (commodatum/precanum), does not prescribe.