Ceniza v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed an action for reconveyance of their shares in Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-C, portions of Lot No. 627, situated in Mandaue, Cebu. Lot No. 627 was originally part of "Hacienda de Mandaue" and was covered by OCT No. RO-10996 issued in the name of "Vicente Dabon married to Marcela [or Marcelina] Ceniza." Petitioners are descendants of Manuel Ceniza, while private respondents are descendants of his sister, Sofia Ceniza. Jose Ceniza (predecessor of petitioners) and Vicente Dabon (predecessor of private respondents) jointly purchased Lot 627 on installment basis, agreeing that the land would be registered in Dabon's name for convenience. Since then, Jose Ceniza, Vicente Dabon, and their heirs possessed their respective portions, declared them for taxation, paid taxes, and made installment payments. After Dabon's death in 1954, his children succeeded to his possession. In 1961, Lot 627 was surveyed and divided into three parts: Lot 627-A for Marcela Ceniza, Lot 627-B for Restituto Ceniza, and Lot 627-C for Nemesia Ceniza-Albina (who bequeathed her share to Jesus Ceniza). The private respondents refused to convey Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-C to petitioners, claiming Vicente Dabon was the sole owner and that the action for reconveyance had prescribed. Procedural History: The trial court rendered judgment in favor of petitioners, finding a co-ownership and ordering the private respondents to execute deeds of conveyance. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that petitioners' right of action had prescribed after 20 years from the registration of the land in Vicente Dabon's name on February 8, 1939. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the registration of the title in the name of one co-owner did not constitute a repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription.
Issue(s)
Whether the registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership, thereby triggering the prescriptive period for an action for reconveyance. Whether, assuming repudiation occurred, the petitioners' action for reconveyance was barred by prescription, considering the timing of the repudiation and the filing of the action.
Ruling
The Supreme Court reversed and set aside the decision of the Court of Appeals and reinstated the decision of the trial court. It held that the action was not barred by prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of repudiation of co-ownership and its effect on prescription: The Court held that the registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in favor of his co-owner, Jose Ceniza, and Jose's heirs, pursuant to Article 1452 of the Civil Code. Adverse possession, necessary for prescription, requires unequivocal acts of repudiation by the trustee made known to the cestui que trust, with clear and conclusive evidence. Here, the petitioners/co-owners had not been ousted, continued to possess their shares, paid realty taxes, and Restituto's house stood on his portion, indicating no clear repudiation. On the issue of prescription: The Court found that even if the private respondents' rejection of the subdivision plan in 1961 was considered an act of repudiation, prescription had not yet set in when the petitioners filed their action for reconveyance in 1967. The Court emphasized that the statutory period of limitation had not run its course after the defendants repudiated the co-ownership in 1961, thus the action was not barred by prescription. The Court cited Custodio v. Casiano and Escobar v. Locsin to underscore the duty to shield fiduciary relations against betrayal and the principle that a trustee's possession is not adverse unless there is clear repudiation.
Main Doctrine
The registration of a property in the name of one co-owner does not constitute a repudiation of co-ownership, and prescription does not run against other co-owners as long as the co-ownership is expressly or impliedly recognized. Adverse possession requires unequivocal acts of repudiation known to the cestui que trust.