Santos v. Santos
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Isidra Santos died intestate in 1967, leaving a parcel of land (the Isidra property). She was survived by her two brothers, Ladislao Santos (Appellant) and Eliseo Santos (Appellee). Ladislao, through his attorney-in-fact Noe Santos, filed a complaint for Judicial Partition against his brother Eliseo and Eliseo's son, Philip Santos (Appellees). Ladislao alleged that he and Eliseo inherited the Isidra property. He discovered that the Tax Declaration for the property had been cancelled and re-issued under the name of Philip Santos, based on a Deed of Sale executed by Virgilio Santos (Eliseo's son). Eliseo and Philip claimed that Ladislao and Eliseo had agreed in 1969 to partition Lot 1522 and the Isidra property, with Eliseo acquiring the Isidra property and subsequently donating it to Virgilio, who then sold it to Philip. They also claimed acquisitive prescription. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Ladislao's complaint, finding that he failed to prove his entitlement and that acquisitive prescription had set in. The RTC cited the lack of co-ownership reflected in tax declarations, the absence of proof of fraud in the cancellation of tax declarations, the destruction of assessment records by fire, and the lapse of time since Isidra's death. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC decision, declaring Ladislao and Eliseo each entitled to ½ pro indiviso shares in the Isidra property and ordering partition. The CA found that the appellees failed to present the best evidence (the original deed) to prove their claim of partition and transfer. The Petition: Petitioners (Philip Santos and heirs of Eliseo Santos) sought review of the CA decision, raising issues concerning the validity of the transfers to Virgilio and Philip, the absence of proof of fraud, acquisitive prescription, laches, and Philip's status as a buyer in good faith.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not upholding the legality and regularity of the transfer of the Isidra property to Virgilio Santos and subsequently to Philip C. Santos, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in awarding one-half (1/2) portion pro indiviso of the Isidra property in favor of the respondent despite the absence of proof of alleged fraud and misrepresentation in the cancellation of the tax declaration in Isidra’s name and its subsequent transfer to Virgilio Santos’ name. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not upholding that acquisitive prescription has already set in as to bar the instant action for partition, and whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that laches has already set in as to bar the respondent in asserting his claim under the petition. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not upholding the right of petitioner Philip Santos as a buyer in good faith and for value. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in not holding that the respondent’s right to file this instant action for partition has already prescribed.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals in toto, holding that the Isidra property remained the property of Ladislao Santos and Eliseo Santos as their inheritance from Isidra Santos. The Court ruled that the appellees failed to prove the alleged partition and transfer of the Isidra property due to their failure to present the best evidence, thus a co-ownership still subsists between the brothers. Consequently, the action for partition is not barred by prescription or laches.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the transfers, the absence of proof of fraud, and the award of a portion to the respondent: The Court held that the petitioners failed to present the best evidence, which is the original document, to prove the alleged "Combined Deed of Partition" or "Deed of Transfer" wherein Ladislao allegedly conveyed his share of the Isidra property to Eliseo. Testimonies of witnesses regarding the existence and contents of such documents were considered secondary evidence, inadmissible without proper proof of the loss or unavailability of the original. The Court emphasized that tax declarations are not conclusive proof of ownership. Furthermore, the testimony of the municipal assessor was insufficient to establish the nature of the document used for the transfer, as he had no personal knowledge of it. The entry on the tax declaration merely indicated cancellation and did not specify the basis or parties involved in the transfer. Therefore, the Isidra property remained co-owned by Ladislao and Eliseo. On acquisitive prescription, laches, and barring the action for partition: The Court reiterated that prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners so long as the co-ownership is expressly or impliedly recognized. There was no clear showing that Eliseo Santos repudiated the co-ownership, nor that such repudiation was made known to Ladislao. The possession by Virgilio and Philip Santos was considered to be with the tolerance of the co-owners, given the close family ties and the fact that Virgilio was Isidra's ward. Such possession did not constitute a repudiation of the co-ownership. Moreover, an action for partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches, as each co-owner may demand partition at any time. The Court found no evidence of express or implied refusal of Ladislao's right to his share, nor any act that would clearly and conclusively establish prescription without doubt. On Philip Santos as a buyer in good faith: Since the Court found that Virgilio Santos did not acquire title over the Isidra Property, he could not have lawfully sold it to his brother, Philip Santos. The principle of nemo dat quod non habet (one cannot give what one does not have) applies. Therefore, Philip Santos could not be considered a buyer in good faith and for value of a property that was not validly transferred to his predecessor-in-interest. On the prescription of the right to file the action for partition: Moreover, an action for partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches, as each co-owner may demand partition at any time.
Main Doctrine
The claim of a subsisting co-ownership has not been effectively refuted by the appellees, and that Eliseo and his successors-in-interest (Virgilio and Philip) did not acquire exclusive title over the entire Isidra property. The failure to present the original deed or a legally admissible copy thereof renders secondary evidence inadmissible, thus invalidating claims of partition and transfer. Prescription does not run in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners so long as the co-ownership is expressly or impliedly recognized.