Yambao v. Yambao
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns a parcel of land originally possessed by Macaria De Ocampo, whose nephew, Hermogenes Yambao, acted as administrator. After Hermogenes' death, his heirs, including Feliciano Yambao, allegedly enjoyed communal use of the property. However, in 2005, the heirs of Feliciano, the petitioners, prohibited the heirs of Hermogenes, the respondents, from accessing the property and ejected Eleanor Yambao, one of Hermogenes' granddaughters, who had built a house on the land. This led the respondents to file a complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of title, and damages, asserting co-ownership derived from Hermogenes. Procedural History: The heirs of Hermogenes filed a complaint for partition and related reliefs against the heirs of Feliciano before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Iba, Zambales. The RTC dismissed the complaint, finding that the respondents failed to prove Macaria's ownership or Hermogenes' right to succeed to her estate. On appeal, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC's decision, finding that Feliciano's free patent application acknowledged Hermogenes' prior possession, suggesting co-ownership. The CA ruled that the RTC should have proceeded with partition proceedings. The Petition: The heirs of Feliciano, the petitioners, seek review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, challenging the CA's decision. They argue that the CA erred in ruling that co-ownership exists between them and the heirs of Hermogenes and that the CA's order for partition constitutes a collateral attack on the validity of Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10737, which was issued in Feliciano's name.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that there is co-ownership between the heirs of Feliciano and the heirs of Hermogenes. Whether the action for partition filed by the heirs of Hermogenes constituted a collateral attack on the validity of OCT No. P-10737. Whether the right of the heirs of Hermogenes to demand partition had prescribed.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the existence of co-ownership: The Court affirmed the CA's finding of co-ownership. It noted that Feliciano's free patent application implicitly recognized Hermogenes' prior possession as the source of his claim, indicating that Feliciano merely tacked his possession from his father. The Court found no evidence that Hermogenes bequeathed the property solely to Feliciano. The Court reiterated that a co-ownership is a form of trust, and mere actual possession by one co-owner does not give rise to an inference of adverse possession, as co-owners are entitled to possession. On collateral attack on the Torrens title: The Court found no merit in the claim that the action for partition constituted a collateral attack on OCT No. P-10737. The heirs of Hermogenes did not attack the title itself but rather sought a declaration of co-ownership and conveyance of their shares, premised on the theory that Feliciano held the property in trust for all the heirs. The Court explained that when Feliciano registered the property solely in his name, an implied trust was created by operation of law, making him a trustee of the undivided shares of the other heirs. A trustee who obtains a Torrens title cannot repudiate the trust by relying on the registration. On prescription of the action for partition: The Court held that an action to demand partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, as each co-owner may demand partition at any time. Prescription does not run as long as a co-owner expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership and has not repudiated it. While the issuance of a Torrens title can constitute an open repudiation, this rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession. In this case, the heirs of Hermogenes were still in possession of the property until 2005, when the heirs of Feliciano prohibited their entry. Therefore, the prescriptive period had not yet begun to run against the heirs of Hermogenes.
Main Doctrine
An action for partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, and each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property, unless there has been an express or implied repudiation of the co-ownership by a co-owner who possesses the property adversely, openly, continuously, and exclusively for the prescriptive period. The issuance of a Torrens title to one co-owner does not automatically constitute a repudiation if the other co-owners remain in possession.