Salvador v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Alipio Yabo owned Lots No. 6080 and 6180, which devolved upon his nine children. Pastor Makibalo, husband of Maria Yabo (one of Alipio's children), filed a complaint to quiet title, alleging he owned 8/9 of the lots by purchase and inheritance. Subsequently, grandchildren and great-grandchildren of Alipio filed a complaint for partition and quieting of title, claiming the lots are common property of Alipio's heirs and that strangers (Salvador spouses) were harvesting coconuts from the lots. Procedural History: The two cases were consolidated. The trial court ruled that Pastor Makibalo and his successors (Salvador spouses) were owners of 8/9 of Lot 6080 and 7/9 of Lot 6180, ordering partition. The Court of Appeals modified this, holding that prescription and laches had not run against the private respondents and that Procopio Yabo never sold his share in Lot 6080 to Pastor. The Supreme Court reviewed the case, considering the conjugal partnership, Maria's estate, and the rights of her heirs, and modified the partition. The Petition: Petitioners (Salvador spouses) contend the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that Pelagia Yabo's share should be included in the partition, that prescription and laches had not run, that Procopio Yabo never sold his share in Lot 6080, and that Jose Yabo should participate as heir.
Issue(s)
Whether the shares of Pelagia Yabo should be included in the partition. Whether prescription and laches have run against the private respondents concerning Maria Yabo's share and her conjugal share. Whether Procopio Yabo sold his share in Lot No. 6080 to Pastor Makibalo. Whether Jose Yabo should participate as an heir in the partition of Maria Yabo's estate.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modifications. It ruled that Pelagia Yabo's share, acquired by Pastor Makibalo after Maria's death, was his exclusive property. It further held that prescription and laches had not barred the claims of Maria's collateral heirs. The Court clarified the partition of Procopio Yabo's share and Maria Yabo's estate, determining the respective shares of the petitioners (successors of Pastor Makibalo) and the private respondents (heirs of Maria Yabo and other co-owners).
Ratio Decidendi
On the inclusion of Pelagia Yabo's share: The Court ruled that Pelagia Yabo's share, acquired by Pastor Makibalo in 1967, five years after his wife Maria's death, was his exclusive property and not part of the conjugal partnership. Therefore, it should pertain to the petitioners as Pastor's successors-in-interest, not be included in the partition among Maria's heirs. On prescription and laches: The Court held that prescription and laches had not run against the private respondents. Citing Cortes v. Oliva, it emphasized that possession by a co-owner is not adverse to others unless there are unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster, made known to the co-owners. Pastor Makibalo's filing of a quiet title action in 1976 was considered the start of repudiation, but this was tolled by the co-heirs' filing of a partition action in the same year, leaving insufficient time for acquisitive prescription. On Procopio Yabo's share in Lot No. 6080: The Court found that Procopio Yabo never sold his share in Lot No. 6080 to Pastor Makibalo. While Pastor sold back Procopio's share in Lot 6180 to Alberto Yabo, the evidence, including an Affidavit of Confirmation of Sale, indicated that Lot 6080 was never sold by Procopio to Pastor. Consequently, there was no need to convey it back. However, since Procopio's share in both lots was acquired during Pastor's marriage with Maria, it became conjugal property, and its resale to Alberto was valid only for Pastor's conjugal and hereditary shares. On Jose Yabo's participation as heir and the partition of conjugal properties and Maria's estate: The Court determined that Jose Yabo was an indispensable party for the partition of Maria Yabo's estate. Despite his initial non-joinder, the Court, applying liberal interpretation of procedural rules, allowed his participation to avoid further delay and expense, deeming the complaint amended to include him as a party plaintiff, thereby allowing him to share in Maria's estate and the conjugal properties. The Court clarified that shares acquired during the marriage were conjugal property, except for Maria's hereditary share. Upon Maria's death, her estate consisted of half of the conjugal properties and her hereditary share. This estate was to be divided between Pastor Makibalo (now petitioners) and Maria's collateral heirs (private respondents, including Jose Yabo), following the rules on succession and co-ownership.
Main Doctrine
The action for partition is imprescriptible, but this cannot be invoked when one co-owner has possessed the property as exclusive owner for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription. Possession by a co-owner is presumed to be for the benefit of all, and acts of possession are not considered adverse unless there are unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster, made known to the other co-owners.