Heirs of Restar v. Heirs of Cichon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Emilio Restar died intestate in 1935, leaving eight children, including Flores Restar. Flores, on July 12, 1959, executed a Joint Affidavit with Helen Restar and subsequently caused the cancellation of the tax declaration for Lot 3177 (5,918 sq. meters), which was part of Emilio Restar's estate, and had it issued in his name (Tax Declaration No. 11134). Flores died on June 10, 1989. On November 5, 1998, the co-heirs of Flores discovered the cancellation and re-issuance of the tax declaration. Procedural History: On January 21, 1999, the heirs of Dolores R. Cichon, Perpetua Sta. Maria, and Maria Rose, along with surviving sisters Dominica Restar-Relojero and Paciencia Restar-Manares, filed a Complaint against the heirs of Flores for partition, declaration of nullity of documents, ownership with damages, and preliminary injunction. They alleged that they were given shares of the produce from the lot and that after Flores' death, his widow Esmenia requested to hold the lot to finance their children's education, with the agreement that it would be divided into eight equal parts afterward. The heirs of Flores claimed ownership, asserting possession in the concept of owner for over thirty years and denying the plaintiffs' allegations. Defendant Adolfo Restar stated he had no objection to the partition. Defendant Policarpio Restar acknowledged Flores as owner but claimed a portion was sold to him via a Deed of Absolute Sale dated May 14, 1981. The RTC dismissed the complaint, holding that Flores and his heirs acquired ownership by prescription, discrediting Policarpio's claim due to discrepancies in signatures and Flores' physical condition. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the RTC, finding that the heirs of Flores failed to prove repudiation of co-ownership or exclusive title, and that there was no adequate notice of repudiation. The CA also sustained the RTC's rejection of Policarpio's claim. The Petition: The heirs of Flores Restar filed a petition for review, assigning as error the CA's reversal of the RTC ruling that they acquired ownership by adverse possession and acquisitive prescription, despite Flores' tax declaration in his name since 1960 and their continuous possession in the concept of owner for over thirty years.
Issue(s)
Whether the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership over the lot by extraordinary acquisitive prescription. Whether the acts of Flores Restar constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership sufficient to commence the period of prescription. Whether the respondents' claim of receiving shares from the produce of the lot was credible. Whether the respondents' delay in filing the action was justified by forbearance.
Ruling
The petition is granted. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and set aside, and the June 30, 1999 decision of the trial court is reinstated. The heirs of Flores Restar are declared owners of the lot by extraordinary prescription.
Ratio Decidendi
On Whether the heirs of Flores Restar acquired ownership over the lot by extraordinary acquisitive prescription: The Supreme Court held that the requirements for extraordinary prescription were met. While Emilio Restar's eight children became co-owners upon his death in 1935, the respondents never possessed the lot or asserted their claim until 1999. In contrast, Flores took possession after his father's death, exercising acts of dominion. The statutory period of prescription commenced in 1960 when Flores, lacking title or good faith, secured a tax declaration in his name, which constituted an adverse claim of ownership. Respondents were deemed aware of this adverse claim on the same date. Flores' possession ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescription after thirty years, as provided by Article 1137 of the New Civil Code. The Court found that Flores' adverse possession, starting in 1960, vested in him exclusive ownership of the land, considering the lapse of more than 38 years until the filing of the case. On Whether the acts of Flores Restar constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership sufficient to commence the period of prescription: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Flores' actions constituted a clear repudiation of the co-ownership. The cancellation of the tax declaration in Emilio Restar's name and the issuance of a new one in Flores' name in 1960, based on a Joint Affidavit asserting ownership, was considered the first concrete act of repudiation. The Court noted that the respondents, despite opportunities, including an amicable partition of other lands in 1973 when all eight heirs were alive, did not demand the inclusion of the lot in question. This inaction, coupled with Flores' continuous possession and enjoyment of the property and its produce to the exclusion of respondents, further supported the conclusion of repudiation. The Court found that Flores' adverse possession was continued by his heirs. On Whether the respondents' claim of receiving shares from the produce of the lot was credible: The Supreme Court discredited the respondents' claim of receiving shares from the produce. The trial court correctly found that the alleged distribution of a few gantas of palay could not be considered a one-eighth share of the total produce, especially after deducting cultivation and production expenses. If the respondents' claim were true, their entire 7/8 share of the produce would amount to only two cavan and six gantas, which was deemed improbable and inconsistent with the expected yield. On Whether the respondents' delay in filing the action was justified by forbearance: The appellate court's crediting of the respondents' justification of forbearance towards Flores or his wife did not impress the Supreme Court. The Court questioned why, even assuming the justification was true, the respondents did not challenge Flores' continuous possession after his children completed their college education in 1977. The filing of the case in 1999, almost ten years after Flores' death and nearly forty years after the initial act of repudiation in 1960, indicated a failure to assert their rights promptly. The Court concluded that respondents slept on their rights, applying the principle of dura lex sed lex.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may acquire ownership of a co-owned property through extraordinary acquisitive prescription if there is a clear repudiation of the co-ownership, and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership, coupled with uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years.