G.R. No. 161720 November 22, 2005 J. Carpio Morales HEIRS O !ORES RES"#R $amel%& ESMENI# R. RES"#R, 'ERN#R(I"# R. REN"INO, !)CI# RES"#R, RO(O!O RES"#R, J#NE" R. RE!OJERO, !ORN# R. R#MOS, M#N)E! RES"#R, NENI"# R. 'E!!E*#, MIR#SO! R. (E!# CR)*, ROSE!!E R. M#"ORRE, +O!IC#R+IO RES"#R a$ #(O!O RES"#R vs. HEIRS O (O!ORES R. CICHON, $amel%& R)(- R. CICHON, NORM# C. !#CHIC#, NI!(# C. J)M#-#O, !-(I# C. S#N"OS, a$ NE!SON R. CICHON HEIRS O +ER+E")# R. S"#. M#RI#, $amel% GEORGE S"#. M#RI#, !I!I# M. M#NI#GO, (ER!- M. CONCE+CION, GER/- S"#. M#RI#, (OR- M. IN()!O HEIRS O M#RI# R. ROSE, $amel%& "ERESI"# R. M#!OCO, RO!#N(O ROSE, E(E!-N R. +#!#CIO a$ MINER/# R. +#S"R#N#, (OMINIC# RES"#RRE!OJERO a$ +#CIENCI# RES"#R M#N#RES While the action to demand partition of a co-owned property does not prescribe, a co-owner may acquire ownership thereof by prescription where there exists a clear repudiation of the co-ownership, and the co-owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and exclusive ownership.
#C"S& -In 1935, Emilio Restar died intestate leaving 8 children-compulsory heirs. In 196, Emilio Emilio!s !s eldest eldest child child,, "lore "lores s cause caused d the cance cancella llatio tion n o# a ta$ declr declrati ation on under under Restar!s name covering a lot located at %rgy &arugdog, 'e(o, )*lan and a ne+ ta$ declar declarati ation on iss issued ued under under his name. name. "lore "lores s died died in 1989. 1989. he co-heir co-heirs s o# "lore "lores s discovered the acts o# "lores. -he heirs o# "lores! sisters together +ith "lores! surviving issters led a complaint agains againstt "lore "lores! s! heirs heirs #or partit partition ion o# the the said said lot and declarat declaration ion o# nulli nullity ty o# documents, o+nership e#ore the R&. -"lores! rothers /olicarpio /olicarpio and )dol#o +ere impleaded as de#endants ut they +ere un+illing co-plainti0s. -he respondents alleged that during the li#etime o# "'ores, they +ere given their shares o# /alay #rom the lot eand even a#ter the death o# "lores. "lores! +ido+ Esmenia appealed to them to allo+ her to hold on to the lot to nance the education o# her childreen to +hich the respondents agreed on the condition that +hen they nish their education, the lot +ould e divided into 8 eual parts. 2pon demand #or the partition, the eirs o# "lores re#used claiming that they +ere the la+#ul o+ners o# the land +hich they inherited #rom "lores. -he eirs o# "lores claimed that they had een in possession o# the lot in the concept o# o+ner #or more than 3 years and een paying the realty ta$es ever since. hey denied the claims o# the respondents. hey #urther claimed that a#ter 44, "lores caused the trans#er o# parcels o# ricelands in )*lan to his silings as their shares #rom the estate o# their #ather Emilio and that an e$tra-udicial partition partition too* place in 1973 +hich +as notari(ed y an )tty. ose Igtanloc and appointing among themselves parcels o# land. -)do -)dol# l#o o inte interp rpos osed ed no oe oect ctio ion n to the the part partit itio ion n o# the the lot lot +hil +hile e /oli /olica carp rpio io ac*no+ledged "lores as the o+ner o# the lot ut part o# it +as sold to him +hich he prayed #or the e$clusion in the partition. -he R& o# )*lan stated that "lores and his heirs had per#ormed acts su:cient to constitute repudiation repudiation o# the co-o+nership, and have auired the lot y prescription. prescription. he R& R& dismissed dismissed the the complaint. he he &) reversed reversed the decision decision o# the R R& .
ISS)E& 4hether or not the eirs o# "lores acuired the land through adverse possession.
R)!ING& -ES. 4hen Restar died in 1935, his eight children ecame pro indiviso co-o+ners o# the lot y intestate succession. Respondents never possessed the lot, ho+ever, much less asserted their claim thereto until anuary 1, 1999 +hen they led the complaint #or partition suect o# the present petition. In contrast, "lores too* possession o# the lot a#ter Restar!s death and e$ercised acts o# dominion thereon ; tilling and cultivating the land, introducing improvements, and enoying the produce thereo#. he statutory period o# prescription, ho+ever, commenced not in 1935 ut in 196 +hen "lores, +ho had neither title nor good #aith, secured a ta$ declaration in his name and may, there#ore, e said to have adversely claimed o+nership o# the lot. )nd respondents +ere also deemed to have een on said date ecome a+are o# the adverse claim. "lores! possession thus ripened into o+nership through acuisitive prescription a#ter the lapse o# thirty years in accordance +ith the earlier uoted )rticle 1137 o# the eclaration
)lso it +as admitted that "lores died only in 1989. /lainti0s had all the chances @sicA to le a case against him #rom 196, or a period o# 9 years +hen he +as still alive, yet they #ailed to do so. hey led the instant case only on anuary , 1999, almost ten @1A years a#ter "lores! death. "rom the #oregoing evidence, it can e seen that the adverse possession o# "lores started in 196, the time +hen the ta$ declaration +as trans#erred in his name. he period o# acuisitive prescription started to run #rom this date. ence, the adverse possession o# "lores Restar #rom 196 vested in him e$clusive o+nership o# the land considering the lapse o# more than 38 years. )cuisitive prescription o# o+nership, laches and prescription o# the action #or partition should e considered in #avor o# "lores Restar and his heirs. 4hile ta$ declarations and receipts are not conclusive evidence o# o+nership and do not prove title to the land, nevertheless, +hen coupled +ith actual possession, they constitute evidence o# great +eight and can e the asis o# a claim o# o+nership through prescription.
