Delima v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Lino Delima acquired Lot No. 7758 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate. Upon his death in 1921, his heirs were his siblings Eulalio, Juanita, Galileo, and Vicente Delima. A certificate of title was issued in 1953 in the name of the Legal Heirs of Lino Delima, represented by Galileo Delima. Subsequently, Galileo Delima executed an affidavit of extra-judicial declaration of heirs, leading to the cancellation of the original title and the issuance of a new title in his sole name, TCT No. 3009, to the exclusion of the other heirs. Galileo Delima then paid the property taxes from 1954 to 1965. Procedural History: On February 29, 1968, the petitioners, who are the surviving heirs of Eulalio and Juanita Delima, filed an action for reconveyance and/or partition of the property and annulment of TCT No. 3009 with damages against Galileo Delima and Vicente Delima. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring them and the heirs of Galileo Delima as co-owners of the lot, each with a one-fourth share, and declared TCT No. 3009 null and void. The heirs of Galileo Delima appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals. The Petition: The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision, upholding Galileo Delima's claim that the other heirs had relinquished their rights, as he alone paid the balance of the purchase price and the realty taxes. The petitioners are now seeking review on certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the right of a co-heir to demand partition is imprescriptible and in disregarding their evidence. They contend that their action for partition was not barred by prescription or laches.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners' action for partition is barred by prescription. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the petitioners' evidence.
Ruling
The petition is denied, and the assailed decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prescription of the action for partition: The Court reiterated that while Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in co-ownership and each may demand partition at any time, this imprescriptibility cannot be invoked when one co-owner has adversely possessed the property as exclusive owner for a period sufficient to vest ownership by prescription. Such adverse possession requires unequivocal acts amounting to ouster of the co-owners, made known to them, and supported by clear and conclusive evidence. The issuance of TCT No. 3009 in Galileo Delima's name, to the exclusion of his co-heirs, based on his Affidavit of Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs, constituted an open and clear repudiation of the co-ownership. This repudiation started the running of the prescriptive period. Since the new title was issued on February 4, 1954, and the action was filed on February 29, 1968, more than ten years of adverse possession had lapsed, barring the action for reconveyance and partition based on implied or constructive trust. The certificate of title served as notice to the world of Galileo's exclusive title, making the repudiation binding on the other heirs and commencing the prescriptive period against them. Therefore, the petitioners' action was indeed barred by prescription. There was no specific ratio provided regarding whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the petitioners' evidence. Therefore, no ratio is provided for this issue.
Main Doctrine
An action for partition filed by co-heirs is barred by prescription when one co-owner has adversely possessed the property as exclusive owner for a period sufficient to vest title by prescription, evidenced by the issuance of a new title in his name to the exclusion of other co-heirs, which constitutes an open and clear repudiation of the co-ownership.