Santos v. Santa Teresa
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Plaintiffs filed a complaint for partition of lands, alleging they and the defendant were joint owners as legitimate descendants of Gregorio Santa Teresa. They prayed for partition and delivery of palay and money. The defendant denied the allegations, claiming exclusive ownership and that the plaintiffs' right of action had prescribed. Procedural History: The parties entered into a stipulation of facts: Gregorio Santa Teresa died about thirty years prior, leaving the parties as heirs; he left no other property than that described; the defendant had been in quiet, peaceful, public, and uninterrupted possession of the property as sole owner since the death of the predecessor, paying land taxes. The Petition: The Court of First Instance ruled in favor of the defendant, absolving him from the complaint, citing De Castro vs. Echarri. The plaintiffs appealed, arguing the lower court erred in not considering Article 1965 of the Civil Code, which states that the action to demand partition does not prescribe as between coheirs or co-owners.
Issue(s)
Whether an action for partition among co-heirs is imprescriptible under Article 1965 of the Civil Code when one co-heir has held exclusive and adverse possession of the property as the sole owner for more than thirty years.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Court of First Instance, holding that the action brought by the plaintiffs had prescribed. The costs of the instance were against the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Supreme Court held that the action for partition had prescribed because the defendant's possession was not held in common but was exclusive and adverse. While Article 1965 of the Civil Code states that partition among co-heirs does not prescribe, the Court clarified that this rule only applies when the possession is held 'pro indiviso' or in the name of all the heirs. Applying the ruling in De Castro v. Echarri, the Court explained that the principle of imprescriptibility is based on the legal presumption that a co-owner who possesses undivided property does so in the interest of all co-participants. This presumption is rebutted when a co-heir possesses the property individually, acting in his own name as the absolute owner and without any intervention from those who may have equal rights. In this case, the stipulated facts proved that the defendant enjoyed the property as the sole owner for thirty years, satisfying the requirements for acquisitive prescription. Consequently, the action to demand partition, which depends on the existence of a community of property, was no longer available to the plaintiffs.
Main Doctrine
The imprescriptibility of the action to demand partition of an inheritance or division of a thing held in common cannot be invoked when one of the coheirs has possessed the inheritance as sole owner for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription, as such action arises from possession in common or pro indiviso.