Mariano v. De Vega
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Spouses Urbano Panganiban and Roberta Espino owned 29 parcels of unregistered land as conjugal property. Roberta died in 1903, leaving Urbano and their two daughters, Mercedes and Gaudencia, as heirs. Urbano died in 1952, leaving as heirs the children of Gaudencia (petitioners) and his children with his second wife, Atanacia Agustin (private respondents). Private respondents took possession of the entire conjugal property upon Urbano's death and appropriated its products. Procedural History: On June 19, 1981, petitioners filed an action for partition and delivery of possession of their shares in the conjugal estate, 28 years after Urbano's death. On September 30, 1981, the respondent judge dismissed the case, citing the ten-year prescriptive period for actions based on constructive trust, as laid down in Supreme Court decisions. Petitioners' motion for reconsideration was denied on January 12, 1982. The Petition: Petitioners filed a petition for certiorari praying for the revocation of the dismissal order and reinstatement of their case, arguing that the ten-year prescriptive period does not apply to unregistered lands, that there was no repudiation of co-ownership, that placing the lands in their names in the assessor's office does not constitute constructive notice of adverse claim, and that their action for partition is timely.
Issue(s)
Whether the ten-year prescriptive period for actions based on constructive trust applies to unregistered lands. Whether the prescriptive period commenced to run against the petitioners in the absence of an allegation or evidence of open and effective repudiation of co-ownership or constructive trust. Whether the registration of the subject lands in the names of the private respondents in the office of the Provincial Assessor constitutes constructive notice of an adverse claim. Whether petitioners' action for partition is still timely despite the lapse of almost 29 years.
Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the assailed Order of the trial court and remanded the case for adjudication on the merits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the applicability of the ten-year prescriptive period for constructive trust: The Court found the trial court's dismissal order inaccurate. It held that the case is governed by the rules on co-ownership, as both parties are co-owners of the disputed properties inherited from a common ancestor. The rule of imprescriptibility of actions based on constructive trust, as invoked by the plaintiffs, was not the correct legal framework for the dispute between co-owners. The Court clarified that the cited jurisprudence, which involved registered lands and the concept of constructive trust, was not directly applicable to the present case concerning co-ownership of unregistered lands. On the commencement of the prescriptive period and repudiation of co-ownership: The Court emphasized that no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. In this case, there was a lack of clear repudiation of the co-ownership duly communicated to the petitioners. Therefore, private respondents could not acquire the shares of the petitioners by prescription. The Court stated that the mere possession of the premises by private respondents does not militate against petitioners' claim, as co-owners are entitled to be in possession of co-owned property. On constructive notice of adverse claim: The Court held that the record in the Office of the Assessor is not sufficient repudiation and communication contemplated by law to establish an adverse claim against co-owners. Such registration does not automatically constitute constructive notice of an adverse claim that would trigger the running of a prescriptive period against other co-owners. The existence of co-ownership itself argues against the theory of implied trust, as a co-owner possesses co-owned property not in behalf of others but in his own behalf, which is distinct from the situation where one holds property for the benefit of another. On the timeliness of the action for partition: Given that the action is governed by the rules on co-ownership and not by the prescriptive period for constructive trust, and that there was no sufficient repudiation of co-ownership, the petitioners' action for partition was deemed timely. The Court also addressed the contention that the judgment had become final and executory, finding that the appeal was filed on time.
Main Doctrine
The prescriptive period for an action to enforce an implied or constructive trust, which is ten (10) years, does not apply to actions for partition among co-owners where there is no clear repudiation of co-ownership duly communicated to the other co-owners. Co-owners are entitled to possess co-owned property, and possession alone does not constitute repudiation.