G.R. No. L-22571 May 25, 1973 JOSEFINA VALDEZ, et.al !. "EOFILA OLORGA et. Al #a!e$ This is an action for partition filed by the living children and grandchildren of the late spouses Federico Valdez, Sr. and Juanita Batul #a!e$ This against the heir and widow of Federico Valdez, Jr. The action concerns Lot o. !", of #uerto #rincesa $adastre, covered by T.$.T. o. T% &' in the na(e of Federico Valdez, Jr. FA#"S$ The land in )uestion Lot o. !" of the #uerto #rincesa $adastre, was originally purchased by the spouses Federico Valdez, Sr. and Juanita Batul fro( *olores +. de utierrez for #-./ however the sale not registered because the original title was lost, but they had been in open, public, peaceful and uninterrupted occupation and possession of Lot o. !", the property in )uestion, since the year !&0 or !&00/ The parties herein, plaintiffs and defendants ali1e, are all successors%in%interest of the spouses, either as forced or co(pulsory heirs or in representatio representationn thereof/ #ortion of the property was rented out to certain +r. 2uicho who eventually purchased a portion of said lot. That in !&'3, upon discovering that the land in )uestion had not been transferred in the na(e of their parents, Josefina Valdez (ade efforts to have the said land transferred to the(, and co((issioned cousin +rs. $astro, together with Federico Valdez, Jr., to negotiate with the utierrez utierrez fa(ily for the purpose, purpose, which cul(inated cul(inated in the e4ecution e4ecution of the deed deed of sale. The The utierrez fa(ily de(anded de(anded additional additional pay(ent fro( vendees. +r. 2uicho advanced the a(ount of #5,5. partly as purchase price of the portion purchased by hi(, in the final e4ecution of the deed of sale, and The *eed of Sale was finalized but was finally placed in the na(e of Valdez, Jr. alone as vendee, instead of the 67eirs of Federico Valdez, Sr.6 or 67eirs of Juanita Batul6 with the e4press understanding that he will hold the sa(e in trust for his other brother and sisters. 8t was done through the suggestion of +r. 2uicho who wanted to facilitate his own deed of sale over the portion that he purchased/ Valdez, Jr. never asserted, nor atte(pted to assert, during his lifeti(e, sole and e4clusive ownership of the pre(ises in )uestion, against the herein plaintiffs/ but after his death in !&9, his widow tried to e:ect the plaintiffs. 7ence this action for partition. DEFENSE ; The legal point raised by the appellants is that since the land in )uestion was sold to the late Federico Valdez, Jr. in !&'" and the Transfer $ertificate of Title, so he alleges, was issued in his na(e in !&-, the action had already prescribed when it was filed (ore than ten ith the understanding that Federico Valdez, Valdez, Jr. will hold the sa(e in, trust for his other brother and sisters/6 <5= that when ?Federico Valdez, Jr. was still living, 6he never atte(pted to e4clude the herein plaintiffs fro( ownership of the land in )uestion,
@ there was an i(plied trust created a(ong Valdez Jr and the other co%heirs. CS
5. >@ the heirs of Valdez Jr. have ac)uired the property through prescription. @ DAL8; !.= There was an i(plied trust.. iven the antecedents of the property and the fact that its ac)uisition by Federico Valdez, Jr. was for the benefit not of hi(self alone but also of his brother and sisters, although for purposes of convenience he was (ade to appear as the sole vendee, the :uridical relation that arose a(ong the( was one of co%ownership, with the plaintiffs%appellees actually in possession of a portion of the property 5.= Ander Erticle '&' of the $ivil $ode, 6o prescription shall run in favor of a co%owner or co%heir against his co%owners or co%heirs so long as he e4pressly or i(pliedly recognizes the co%ownership.6 8nsofar as the aspect of e4tinctive prescription referred to in this article is concerned, it is but a restate(ent of Erticle !&9- of the Spanish $ivil $ode, which provides; 6Es between co%heirs, co%owners, or proprietors of ad:acent estates, the action to de(and the partition of the inheritance or of the thing held in co((on, or the survey of the ad:acent properties, does not prescribe.6 End fro( the standpoint of ac)uisitive prescription, or prescription of ownership, this $ourt has held in nu(erous decisions involving fiduciary relations such as those occupied by a trustee with respect to the cestui que trust that as a general%rule the for(er?s possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen into a title by prescription. Edverse possession in such a case re)uires, the concurrence of the following%circu(stances; ith costs.
