Vda. de Figuracion v.
Figuracion-Gerilla, 690 SCRA 495 (2013)
CASE DOCTRINE:
Placing a parcel of land under the mantle of the Torrens system does not mean that
ownership thereof can no longer be disputed. The certificate cannot always be
considered as conclusive evidence of ownership.
Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire by acquisitive prescription the share of the other
co-heirs or co-owners absent a clear repudiation of the co ownership.
FACTS:
The parties are the heirs of Leandro Figuracion (Leandro) who died intestate in May
1958. Lot No. 707 of the Cadastral Survey of Urdaneta, Pangasinan was originally
owned by Eulalio Adviento (Eulalio), covered by an Original Certificate of Title (OCT)
issued in his name. Eulalio begot Agripina Adviento (Agripina) with his first wife Marcela
Estioko (Marcela), whom Eulalio survived. When he remarried, Eulalio had another
daughter, petitioner Carolina, with his second wife, Faustina Escabesa (Faustina).
Agripina executed a Deed of Quitclaim over the eastern half of Lot No. 707 in favor of
her niece, Emilia. Soon thereafter, petitioner Carolina executed an Affidavit of Self-
Adjudication adjudicating unto herself the entire Lot No. 707 as the sole and exclusive
heir of her deceased parents and also executed a Deed of Absolute Sale in favor of
petitioners Hilaria and Felipa. Upon Emilia and her family’s return from the U.S., and
relying on the Deed of Quitclaim, she built a house on the eastern half of Lot No. 707.
Years later, Hilaria and her agents threatened to demolish the house of Emilia who, in
retaliation, was prompted to seek the partition of Lot No. 707 as well as Lot Nos. 2299
and 705. The matter was initially brought before the Katarungang Pambarangay, but no
amicable settlement was reached by the parties. Emilia instituted a Complaint for the
partition of Lot Nos. 2299, 705 and 707, annulment of the Affidavit of Self- Adjudication,
Deed of Absolute Sale and Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 42244, reconveyance
of eastern half portion of Lot No. 707, quieting of title and damages. The RTC rendered
its decision dismissing the complaint for partition, reconveyance, quieting of title and
damages is hereby ordered dismissed whereas the affidavit of self-adjudication, deed of
sale and the transfer certificate of title involving Lot 707 were declared null and void.
Upon appeal, the CA ruled that the RTC erred in refusing to partition Lot No. 707 and
declared Lot No. 707 to be owned by Emilia, ½ pro indiviso share; Felipa, ¼ pro indiviso
share; and Hilaria, ¼ pro indiviso share.
ISSUES:
(1) Whether the respondent can compel the partition of Lot No. 707.
(2) Whether the respondent’s right to demand for partition is barred by acquisitive
prescription or laches.
RULING:
(1) Yes. In this case, co-ownership of Lot No. 707 was precisely what respondent
Emilia was able to successfully establish, as correctly found by the RTC and
affirmed by the CA. Lot No. 707 was a co-owned property of Agripina and
Carolina. As co-owners, each of them had full ownership of her part and of the
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. Each of them also had the right to alienate
the lot but only in so far as the extent of her portion was affected.
Accordingly, the deed of sale executed by Carolina in favor of Hilaria and Felipa
was a valid conveyance but only insofar as the share of Carolina in the co-
ownership is concerned. As Carolina’s successors-in interest to the property,
Hilaria and Felipa could not acquire any superior right in the property than what
Carolina is entitled to or could transfer or alienate after partition.
In a contract of sale of co-owned property, what the vendee obtains by virtue of
such a sale are the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, and the vendee
merely steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner. Hilaria and Felipa did not
acquire the undivided portion pertaining to Agripina, which has already been
effectively bequeathed to respondent Emilia as early as November 28, 1961 thru
the Deed of Quitclaim. In turn, being the successor-in-interest of Agripina’s share
in Lot No. 707, respondent Emilia took the former’s place in the co-ownership
and as such co-owner, has the right to compel partition at any time.
(2) No. Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire by acquisitive prescription the share of
the other co-heirs or co-owners absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership.
The act of repudiation, as a mode of terminating co-ownership, is subject to
certain conditions, to wit: (1) a co-owner repudiates the coownership; (2) such an
act of repudiation is clearly made known to the other co-owners; (3) the evidence
thereon is clear and conclusive; and (4) he has been in possession through
open, continuous, exclusive, and notorious possession of the property for the
period required by law.
To sustain a plea of prescription, it must always clearly appear that one who was
originally a joint owner has repudiated the claims of his co-owners, and that his
co-owners were apprised or should have been apprised of his claim of adverse
and exclusive ownership before the alleged prescriptive period began to run.
When Hilaria and Felipa registered the lot in their names to the exclusion of
Emilia, an implied trust was created by force of law and the two of them were
considered a trustee of the respondent’s undivided share. As trustees, they
cannot be permitted to repudiate the trust by relying on the registration.
