Figuracion v. Figuracion-Gerilla
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case concerns a dispute over the ownership and partition of three parcels of land, Lot Nos. 2299, 705, and 707, originally acquired by Leandro Figuracion and Eulalio Adviento. Leandro Figuracion, who died intestate in May 1958, acquired Lot Nos. 2299 and 705 during his lifetime and registered them in his name and his wife Carolina's. He executed a Deed of Quitclaim over these properties in favor of his six children. Lot No. 707 was originally owned by Eulalio Adviento, father of Carolina and half-brother to Agripina Adviento. Agripina quitclaimed her share of Lot No. 707 to her niece, Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla (respondent). Carolina, Leandro's widow, later executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication over the entire Lot No. 707 and sold it to her daughters Hilaria and Felipa. Procedural History: Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla filed a complaint for partition, annulment of documents, reconveyance, quieting of title, and damages against the petitioners. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed Emilia's complaint for partition of Lot Nos. 2299 and 705, deeming it premature, but annulled Carolina's Affidavit of Self-Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale concerning Lot No. 707. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision regarding Lot No. 707, declaring it co-owned by Emilia, Felipa, and Hilaria, and directed its partition. The Supreme Court, in a prior related case (G.R. No. 154322), denied Emilia's appeal regarding Lot Nos. 2299 and 705, agreeing that their partition was premature. The present petition by the heirs of Figuracion challenges the CA's decision concerning Lot No. 707. The Petition: The petitioners are seeking a review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the Court of Appeals' decision that declared Lot No. 707 to be co-owned by Emilia Figuracion-Gerilla (respondent), Felipa Figuracion-Manuel, and Hilaria Figuracion. The petitioners argue that the Deed of Quitclaim executed by Agripina Adviento in favor of Emilia is void due to lack of acceptance and several alleged defects, including its unregistered status and the questionable authority of the notary. They contend that the issuance of TCT No. 42244 in the names of Hilaria and Felipa constitutes an express repudiation of co-ownership, barring Emilia's claim through acquisitive prescription and laches. The respondent, Emilia, counters that the Deed of Quitclaim should be treated as an onerous donation, not requiring formal acceptance, and that the petitioners' arguments regarding its validity were not raised in the lower courts.
Issue(s)
Whether the petitioners can raise new issues regarding the validity and nature of the Deed of Quitclaim for the first time on appeal. Whether respondent Emilia can compel the partition of Lot No. 707. Whether respondent Emilia's right to demand partition is barred by acquisitive prescription or laches.
Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition, affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision with modifications regarding the apportionment of Lot No. 707, and remanded the case to the RTC for partition by commissioners. The Court ruled that the petitioners are barred from raising new issues regarding the Deed of Quitclaim for the first time on appeal. It held that Emilia has the right to compel partition of Lot No. 707, and this right is not barred by acquisitive prescription or laches. The Court modified the division of Lot No. 707, assigning 3/8 to Hilaria and Felipa, 1/2 to Emilia, and 1/8 to the estate of Carolina.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of raising new issues on appeal: The Court held that the petitioners are barred by estoppel from raising new issues regarding the defects and actual nature of the Deed of Quitclaim for the first time on appeal. The parties agreed to limit the issue concerning Lot No. 707 to whether Emilia was the owner. The petitioners' theory before the RTC was that the Deed of Quitclaim was rendered ineffective by TCT No. 42244. On appeal, they shifted their theory to question the execution and enforceability of the Deed of Quitclaim as a donation without acceptance. This change in theory is impermissible as it breaches the rule against changing theories on appeal and violates basic due process, as the adverse party would have no opportunity to present further evidence. The Court reiterated that questions of fact are beyond the province of a Rule 45 petition. On the respondent's right to compel partition of Lot No. 707: The Court affirmed that Emilia has the right to compel the partition of Lot No. 707. The ownership of Lot No. 707 was established through the Deed of Quitclaim from Agripina, who was a co-owner as a legitimate heir of Eulalio. The issuance of a Torrens title does not preclude disputes over ownership or the existence of co-ownership. Carolina, as a co-owner, could only validly sell her share, not the entire lot, without prejudicing Agripina's share. Therefore, the sale by Carolina to Hilaria and Felipa only transferred Carolina's share, making Hilaria and Felipa co-owners. Emilia, as the successor-in-interest to Agripina's share, stepped into Agripina's shoes as a co-owner and has the right to demand partition. On acquisitive prescription and laches: The Court ruled that Emilia's right to demand partition is not barred by acquisitive prescription or laches. The petitioners failed to establish a clear repudiation of co-ownership. The registration of TCT No. 42244 in the names of Hilaria and Felipa did not effectively repudiate the co-ownership, especially since Emilia built her house on the lot without opposition, and Hilaria paid realty taxes on behalf of Emilia. These acts recognized the subsistence of co-ownership. Furthermore, an implied trust was created, preventing Hilaria and Felipa from repudiating the trust by relying on the Torrens title. The alleged repudiation only occurred in 1994 when Hilaria attempted to demolish Emilia's house, and Emilia filed her complaint in the same year, thus not meeting the prescriptive period. Laches was also deemed unavailing as it cannot be used to defeat justice or perpetrate fraud.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may compel partition at any time. The issuance of a certificate of title in the name of one co-owner does not necessarily preclude the existence of co-ownership. Acts of repudiation of co-ownership must be clear, conclusive, and made known to the other co-owners, and possession must be open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious for the period required by law. An implied trust is created when one co-owner registers the property in their name to the exclusion of others.