Deiparine v. Court of Appeals
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The case involves a parcel of land, Lot 1938 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate, originally owned by Marcelo Deiparine. Upon his death in 1929, it was inherited by his wife and children. In 1930, the lot was subdivided into Lot 1938-A and Lot 1938-B. Manuel Deiparine took possession of Lot 1938-A and declared it for taxation. Upon his death in 1968, his heirs took possession. Lot 1938-B was sold to Justiniana Deiparine, and defendant Bacus took possession. Procedural History: In September 1982, heirs of several deceased children of Marcelo Deiparine filed a complaint for partition of Lot 1938 against the heirs of Manuel Deiparine and Justiniana Deiparine. The defendants alleged inheritance, prescription, and estoppel. In April 1984, the heirs of Manuel Deiparine executed an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs and filed a petition for judicial reconstitution of title over Lot 1938-A, alleging no pending litigation. A reconstituted title (TCT No. RT-3834 [NA]) was issued in the name of Manuel Deiparine. Plaintiffs amended their complaint to include other defendants and to declare the deeds and TCT No. RT-3834 (NA) null and void due to alleged forgery and fraud. They also sought to nullify the deed of sale over Lot 1938-B. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding sufficient proof of lawful acquisition and applying laches and estoppel. On appeal, the Court of Appeals modified the decision, declaring co-ownership among the heirs for Lot 1938-A, specifying ownership proportions for Lot 1938-B, and declaring TCT No. RT-3834 (NA) null and void, ordering an accounting and partition. The Petition: Petitioners (heirs of Manuel Deiparine) sought review of the Court of Appeals' decision, alleging errors in disregarding evidence, not applying laws on laches, estoppel, and prescription, nullifying the reconstituted title, and dismissing the trial court's decision.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in disregarding the evidence presented by the petitioners. Whether the laws on laches, estoppel, and prescription should have been applied to bar the respondents' claims. Whether the reconstituted title (TCT No. RT-3834 [NA]) in the name of Manuel Deiparine is valid and should not have been nullified. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the decision of the Trial Court.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The decision of the Court of Appeals dated January 29, 1993, in CA-G.R. CV No. 24136, is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged error in disregarding evidence: The Court held that the petitioners' evidence, consisting of a subdivision plan and tax declarations, were not conclusive proof of ownership. A tax declaration does not vest ownership, and a subdivision plan prepared at the instance of a predecessor-in-interest is self-serving. The Court found that the evidence did not prove the sale of Lot 1938-A to Manuel Deiparine. Furthermore, the tax receipts presented by the petitioners were found to be paid by Marcelo Deiparine or Canuto Deiparine, not Manuel Deiparine, and Manuel Deiparine only started paying realty taxes for the lot in 1978, long after the alleged sale. On the application of laches, estoppel, and prescription: The Court found that the petitioners' claim of laches and estoppel was not supported by clear and convincing evidence. The possession of Manuel Deiparine was not shown to be to the exclusion of other co-heirs, and thus did not constitute an ouster. The Court reiterated that an action for partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches, as each co-owner may demand partition at any time. On the validity of the reconstituted title: The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' finding that TCT No. RT-3834 (NA) was null and void. The reconstitution proceedings were found to be fraudulent and in bad faith, as the petitioners misrepresented that no litigation was pending and presented a falsified certification from the Bureau of Lands. The Court emphasized that reconstitution proceedings based on sham and deceitful evidence cannot grant legitimate rights and benefits, citing Republic vs. Court of Appeals. On the dismissal of the Trial Court's decision: The Court found that the Court of Appeals' decision was in accord with the evidence on record and correctly modified the trial court's ruling. The appellate court's findings regarding co-ownership, the proportions of ownership for Lot 1938-B, and the nullity of the reconstituted title were supported by the evidence presented.
Main Doctrine
The reconstitution of a title based on fraudulent and deceitful evidence is null and void. Possession by a co-owner is not adverse unless there are unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to ouster, made known to the other co-owners. An action for partition is imprescriptible.