Oliveras v. Lopez
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: Lorenzo Lopez owned Lot 4685. Upon his death in 1931, the property was inherited by his wife, Tomasa Ramos, and six children. The heirs did not legally partition the property for over twenty-one years. On February 11, 1953, Tomasa Ramos and her eldest son, Candido Lopez, executed two deeds of absolute sale, selling specific portions of their undivided interests in Lot 4685 to spouses Melecio Oliveras and Aniceta Minor, and to spouses Pedro Oliveras and Teodora Gaspar, for P1,000 each. Candido also executed an affidavit stating he had offered his undivided portion to adjacent owners who were unable to purchase it. The vendees paid real property taxes for their respective purchased properties and possessed them, segregating them by dikes. Procedural History: More than thirteen years later, on November 21, 1966, the Oliveras brothers' counsel sent a letter demanding partition. Receiving no response, the Oliveras brothers and their wives filed a complaint for partition and damages against the Lopez heirs in the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan. They alleged delivery of possession, payment of taxes, prior offers to sell to co-owners, annotation of adverse claims, and frustration of their desire to segregate their portions due to the defendants' refusal to release the owner's duplicate title and execute a deed of partition. The defendants alleged no sale transpired, possession was illegal, and they had no obligation to release the title or accede to partition. They counterclaimed for damages and attorney's fees. The lower court declared the deeds of sale valid and ordered the defendants to allow the segregation of the sold portions. The defendants appealed. The Petition: The defendants-appellants contended that the lower court erred in declaring the deeds of sale valid, in ordering the segregation of the sold portions, and in not considering their defense of prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the two deeds of absolute sale are valid despite pertaining to designated portions of an undivided, co-owned property, considering the duration of the co-ownership. Whether the action for partition has prescribed, taking into account the specific provisions of Article 494 of the Civil Code regarding the right to demand partition at any time.
Ruling
The decision of the lower court declaring the validity of the two deeds of sale and directing the partition of Lot 4685 is AFFIRMED. The lower court is ordered to facilitate the preparation and approval of a project of partition. The decision is immediately executory.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the deeds of absolute sale: The Court held that while generally, before partition, no co-owner can claim title to a definite portion of an undivided property, the juridical condition of co-ownership is not limitless. Under Articles 494 and 1083 of the Civil Code, co-ownership should not exceed twenty years, and agreements to keep property undivided should be for a maximum of ten years, with stipulations beyond that period being void only as to the excess. In this case, the co-ownership had existed for more than twenty years. Therefore, when Candido and his mother sold definite portions, they validly exercised dominion because, by operation of law, the co-ownership had ceased. The filing of the partition complaint by the Oliverases, as vendees subrogated to Candido's rights, merely formalized Candido's act of terminating the co-ownership. The defendants' testimonial evidence that the deeds were mortgages was insufficient to overcome the evidentiary value of the public instruments presented by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs' actual possession without opposition, payment of taxes, and benefit from produce further indicated their absolute dominion. On the prescription of the action for partition: The Court ruled that the action for partition had not prescribed. Although the complaint was filed thirteen years after the execution of the deeds, which might be barred under the general provision of Article 1144(a) of the Civil Code, Article 494 specifically mandates that each co-owner may demand partition at any time concerning his share. Considering the validity of the conveyances and the Oliverases' subrogation to Candido's rights, their action for partition was timely and properly filed. The prolonged co-ownership exceeding twenty years, by operation of law, terminated the condition of co-ownership, making partition demandable.
Main Doctrine
The co-ownership of an estate, by operation of law, ceases after twenty (20) years, allowing individual co-owners to validly exercise dominion over definite portions of the property, even before formal partition. An action for partition filed by vendees subrogated to the rights of a co-owner is timely if filed within the prescriptive period for partition, which can be demanded at any time by a co-owner.