PANGAN v. CA
G.R. No. L-39299; October 18, 1988
Ponente: J. Cruz
FACTS:
In 1964, the petitioners filed an application for the registration of the land in their names by virtue of their continuous and exclusive possession thereof since 1895, by themselves and their father and grandfather before them. After proper notices by publication and posting as required the trial court issued an order of general default, there being no opposition to the application, and proceeded to hear the evidence of the applicants ex-parte. On the basis thereof, the application was approved on March 31, 1966.
On June 8, 1966, the herein private respondent filed a petition to set aside the said decision, which the trial court granted, admitting at the same time her opposition to the application and setting the case for reception of her evidence. This evidence sought to show that the land was inherited by Leon Hilario's three children, but the son, Felicisimo, waived his right thereto and thereby made his two sisters, Silvestra and Catalina, its exclusive co-owners. As Catalina's daughter, she was entitled to one-half of the property, the order half going to Silvestra's heirs, the petitioners herein and the latter's grandchildren.
On September 13, 1968, the trial judge issued an order dismissing the opposition and reinstating his original order of March 31, 1966. His reason was that whatever rights Teodora might have had over the property had been forfeited by extinctive prescription because she had left the land in 1942 and had not since then asserted any claim thereto until 1966
ISSUE:
Whether the rights of Teodora were forfeited by extinctive prescription
HELD:
No, the rights of Teodora were not forfeited by extinctive prescription.
It is settled rule that possession by one-co-owner will not be regarded as adverse to the other co-owners but in fact as beneficial to all of them. Hence, as long as his co-ownership is recognized, an action to compel partition will not prescribe and may be filed at any time against the actual possessor by any of the other co-owners.
For title to prescribe in favor of the co-owner, however, there must be a clear showing that he has repudiated the claims of the other co-owners and that they have been categorically advised of the exclusive claim he is making to the property in question.
Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the following circumstances:
1.That the trustee has performed unequivocal acts amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust;
2.That such positive acts of repudiation had been made known to the cestui que trust; and
3.That the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.
On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, the Court is not convinced that the above requirements have been satisfied.
The petitioners have not proved that their possession excluded their co-owner and aunt or that they derived their title from a separate conveyance to them of the property by Leon Hilario. Parenthetically, such a conveyance, if it existed, would be questionable as it might have deprived Leon's other children of their legitime.
In 1964, the petitioners filed an application for the registration of the land in their names by virtue of their continuous and exclusive possession thereof since 1895, by themselves and their father and grandfather before them. After proper notices by publication and posting as required the trial court issued an order of general default, there being no opposition to the application, and proceeded to hear the evidence of the applicants ex-parte. On the basis thereof, the application was approved on March 31, 1966.
On June 8, 1966, the herein private respondent filed a petition to set aside the said decision, which the trial court granted, admitting at the same time her opposition to the application and setting the case for reception of her evidence. This evidence sought to show that the land was inherited by Leon Hilario's three children, but the son, Felicisimo, waived his right thereto and thereby made his two sisters, Silvestra and Catalina, its exclusive co-owners. As Catalina's daughter, she was entitled to one-half of the property, the order half going to Silvestra's heirs, the petitioners herein and the latter's grandchildren.
On September 13, 1968, the trial judge issued an order dismissing the opposition and reinstating his original order of March 31, 1966. His reason was that whatever rights Teodora might have had over the property had been forfeited by extinctive prescription because she had left the land in 1942 and had not since then asserted any claim thereto until 1966
ISSUE:
Whether the rights of Teodora were forfeited by extinctive prescription
HELD:
No, the rights of Teodora were not forfeited by extinctive prescription.
It is settled rule that possession by one-co-owner will not be regarded as adverse to the other co-owners but in fact as beneficial to all of them. Hence, as long as his co-ownership is recognized, an action to compel partition will not prescribe and may be filed at any time against the actual possessor by any of the other co-owners.
For title to prescribe in favor of the co-owner, however, there must be a clear showing that he has repudiated the claims of the other co-owners and that they have been categorically advised of the exclusive claim he is making to the property in question.
Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the following circumstances:
1.That the trustee has performed unequivocal acts amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust;
2.That such positive acts of repudiation had been made known to the cestui que trust; and
3.That the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.
On the basis of the evidence presented by the parties, the Court is not convinced that the above requirements have been satisfied.
The petitioners have not proved that their possession excluded their co-owner and aunt or that they derived their title from a separate conveyance to them of the property by Leon Hilario. Parenthetically, such a conveyance, if it existed, would be questionable as it might have deprived Leon's other children of their legitime.
No comments:
Post a Comment