Oblicon Case Digest
Oblicon Case Digest
Oblicon Case Digest
Heirs of Cichon did not deny that aside from the verbal
Ten years later, the heirs of Flores’ sisters, Dolores R.
partition of one parcel of land in Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan
Cichon, et. al. (Heirs of Cichon) filed a Complaint against
way back in 1945, they also had an amicable partition of
Flores’ heirs for “partition of the lot, declaration of nullity of
the lands of Emilio Restar in Cerrudo and Palale, Banga
documents, ownership with damages and preliminary
Aklan on September 28, 1973 (exhibit “20”). If they were
injunction” before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan
able to demand the partition, why then did they not
alleging that the widow Esmenia appealed to them to
demand the inclusion of the land in question in order to
allow her to hold on to the lot to finance the education of
settle once and for all the inheritance from their father
her children, to which they agreed on the condition that
Emilio Restar, considering that at that time all of the
after the children had finished their education, it would be
brothers and sisters, the eight heirs of Emilio Restar, were
divided into eight equal parts; and upon their demand for
still alive and participated in the signing of the extra-
partition of the lot, the defendants Flores‘ heirs refused,
judicial partition?
they claiming that they were the lawful owners thereof as
they had inherited it from Flores. Flores‘ heirs claimed that
they had been in possession of the lot in the concept of Indeed, the following acts of Flores show possession
owner for more than thirty (30) years and have been adverse to his co-heirs: the cancellation of the tax
paying realty taxes since time immemorial. And they declaration certificate in the name of Restar and securing
denied having shared with the plaintiffs the produce of the another in his name; the execution of a Joint Affidavit
lot or that upon Flores’ death in 1989, Esmenia requested stating that he is the owner and possessor thereof to
the plaintiffs to allow her to hold on to it to finance her the exclusion of respondents; payment of real estate tax
children’s education, they contending that by 1977, the and irrigation fees without respondents having ever
children had already finished their respective courses. contributed any share therein; and continued enjoyment of
the property and its produce to the exclusion of
respondents. And Flores’ adverse possession was
The RTC of Kalibo, Aklan held that Flores and his heirs
continued by his heirs.
had performed acts sufficient to constitute repudiation of
the co-ownership, concluded that they had acquired the
lot by prescription. The Court of Appeals reversed The trial court’s finding and conclusion that Flores and his
the decision finding that there was no adequate notice by heirs had for more than 38 years possessed the land in
Flores to his co-heirs of the repudiation of the co- open, adverse and continuous possession in the concept
ownership and neither was there a categorical assertion of owner — which length of possession had never been
by the defendants of their exclusive right to the entire lot questioned, rebutted or disputed by any of the heirs of
that barred the plaintiffs’ claim of ownership. Cichon, being thus duly supported by substantial
evidence, he and his heirs have become owner of the lot
by extraordinaryprescription. It is unfortunate that
ISSUE:
respondents slept on their rights. Dura lex sed lex.
Whether or not Heirs of Flores acquired ownership over
Arzadon-Crisolog v. Ranon (ART. 543)
the lot by extraordinaryprescription
FACTS:
HELD:
According toRañon, her family had enjoyed continuous,
Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights peaceful and uninterrupted possession and ownership
may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary acquisitive over the subject property since 1962, and had religiously
paid the taxes thereon. They had built a house on the evidence of ownership, nevertheless, they are good
subject property where she and her family had resided. indicia of possession in the concept of owner for no one in
Unfortunately, in 1986, when her family was already his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is
residing in Metro Manila, fire razed and destroyed the said not in his actual or at least constructive possession.They
house. Nonetheless, they continued to visit the subject constitute at least proof that the holder has a claim of title
property, as well as pay the real estate taxes thereon. over the property.As is well known, the payment of taxes
However, in August of 1986, her daughter, Zosie Rañon, coupled with actual possession of the land covered by the
discovered that the subject property was already in the tax declaration strongly supports a claim of ownership.
name of the spouses Montemayor under Tax Declaration
No. 0010563 which was purportedly issued in their favor Possession in the eyes of the law does not mean that a
by virtue of an Affidavit of Ownership and Possession man has to have his feet on every square meter of the
which the spouses Montemayor executed themselves. ground before it can be said that he is in possession.
The Affidavit was alleged to have created a cloud of doubt (Ramos v. Dir. Of Lands)
over Rañon’s title and ownership over the subject
property. Nothing was done by petitioners to claim possession over
the subject property from the time their predecessors-in-
The spouses Montemayor, for their part, alleged that they interest had lost possession of the property due to their
acquired the subject lot by purchase from Leticia del deaths. Plainly, petitioners slept on their rights.
Rosario and Bernardo Arzadon who are the heirs of its Vigilantibus sed non dormientibus jura subveniunt. The
previous owners for a consideration of P100,000.00. law comes to the succor only to aid the vigilant, not those
who slumber on their rights.
The Heirs of Marcelina Arzadon-Crisologo, (represented
by Leticia A. Crisologo del Rosario), Mauricia Arzadon, Respondents occupied without interruption the subject
and Bernardo Arzadon (petitioners) filed an Answer in property in the concept of an owner, thereby acquiring
Intervention claiming, inter alia, that they are the rightful ownership via extraordinary acquisitive prescription.
owners of the subject property, having acquired the same
from their predecessors-in-interest. They averred that AGUIRRE, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.
there existed no liens or encumbrances on the subject G.R. No. 122249 January 29, 2004
property in favor of Agrifina Rañon; and that no person,
other than they and the spouses Montemayor, has an FACTS:
interest in the property as owner or otherwise. Leocadio Medrano and his first wife Emilia
owned a piece of land. After the death of Emilia, Leocadio
ISSUES: married his second wife Miguela. When Leocadio died, all
his heirs agreed that Sixto Medrano, a child of the first
(1) W/N the Notice of Adverse Claim filed by the marriage, should manage and administer the said
petitioners constitute an effective interruption since 1962 property. After Sixto died, his heirs learned that he had
of respondents possession of the subject property; and executed an Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property in which
he falsely stated that he was the only heir of Leocadio. It
(2)W/N the respondents had acquired ownership over the turned out that while Sixto were still alive, he sold a
subject property through uninterrupted and adverse portion of the subject land tp Tiburcio Balitaan and
possession for 30 years, without need of title or of good another portion to Maria Bacong, Maria Bacong later sold
faith the said portion to Rosendo Bacong. Petitioners, all heirs
of Leocadio who were affected by the sale demanded
RULING: reconveyance of the portions sold by Sixto but the 3
vendees refused. Resultantly, petitioners filed a suit
Article 1123 and Article 1124 of the Civil Code underscore against them seeking the nullity of the documents and
the judicial character of civil interruption. For civil partition thereof. The vendees contended that they
interruption to take place, the possessor must have acquired the property under the valid deed of sale and
received judicial summons. None appears in the case at petitioners’ cause of action was barred by laches and
bar. The Notice of Adverse Claim which was filed by prescription. Tiburcio also contended that he is an
petitioners in 1977 is nothing more than a notice of claim innocent purchaser for value.
which did not effectively interrupt respondents’
possession. ISSUE:
Whether or not there was a valid sale between
The open, continuous, exclusive and notorious Sixto Medrano and the three purchases considering the
possession by respondents of the subject property for a fact that it was made without the consent of the co-
period of more than 30 years in repudiation of petitioners’ owners.
ownership had been established. During such length of
time, respondents had exercised acts of dominion over HELD:
the subject property, and paid taxes in their name. Under Article 493 of the New Civil Code, a sale
Jurisprudence is clear that although tax declarations or by a co-owner of the whole property as his will affect only
realty tax payments of property are not conclusive his own share but not those of the other co-owners who
did not consent to the sale). The provision clearly provides P9,000.00, as evidenced by a deed entitled Kasulatan
that the sale or other disposition affects only the seller’s dated January 15, 1965 which deed appears to have been
share, and the transferee gets only what corresponds to duly notarized by then Municipal Judge Pascual L.
his grantor’s share in the partition of the property owned in Serrano of the Municipal Court of Siniloan,
common. Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided
share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner On April 1, 1973, petitioner Consuelo executed an
without the consent of the other co-owner is not null and Affidavit attesting to the fact that the aforementioned
void; only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, parcel of land had truly been sold by her and her husband
thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property. It is Generoso to the spouses Go S. Kiang and Rosa Javier
clear therefore that the deed of sale executed by Sixto in Go, as borne by the said Kasulatan. Evidently, the
favor of Tiburcio Balitaan is a valid conveyance only affidavit was executed for purposes of securing a new tax
insofar as the share of Sixto in the co-ownership is declaration in the name of the spouses Go.
concerned. Acts which may be considered adverse to
strangers may not be considered adverse in so far as co- In December, 1973, in a case for Unlawful Detainer
owners are concerned. A mere silent possession by a co- filed by a certain Demetria Garcia against herein
owner, his receipts of rentals, fruits or profits from the petitioners, the latter alleged that therein plaintiff Garcia is
property, the erection of buildings and fences and planting not a real party in interest and therefore has no legal
of trees thereon, and the payment of land taxes, cannot capacity and cause of action to sue the defendants; that
serve as proof of exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out the real parties in interest of the parcel of commercial land
by clear and convincing evidence that he exercised such and the residential apartment in question are Generoso
acts of possession which unequivocally constituted an Gualberto and Go S. Kiang respectively as shown by TCT
ouster or deprivation of the rights of the other co-owners. No. 9203 issued by the Register of Deeds of Laguna.
Thus, in order that a co-owner’s possession may In a Forcible Entry case filed by respondents against
be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or the other co- petitioners before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
owners, the following elements must concur: Siniloan-Famy, Siniloan, Laguna docketed as Civil Case
(1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of No. 336, a decision was rendered in favor of respondents,
repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust which decision was affirmed in toto by the RTC of
or the other co-owners; Siniloan, Laguna. When elevated to the Court of Appeals,
(2) that such positive acts of repudiation have that same decision was affirmed by the latter court, saying
been known to the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; that the Court finds that the judgment of the court a quo
and affirming the previous judgment of the municipal court is
(3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and supported by sufficient and satisfactory evidence and
convincing. there is no reason for the Court to hold otherwise.
Tested against these guidelines, the respondents In the meantime, on June 14, 1978, Original
failed to present competent evidence that the acts of Sixto Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 1388 was issued in the
adversely and clearly repudiate the existing co-ownership name of respondent Rosa Javier Go, wife of Go S. Kiang.
among the heirs of Leocadio Medrano. Respondent’s
reliance on the tax declaration in the name of Sixto August 10, 1995, in the Regional Trial Court at
Medrano is unworthy of credit since we have held on Siniloan, Laguna petitioners filed against respondents
several occasions that tax declarations by themselves do their complaint in this case for Conveyance, Accion
not conclusively prove title to land. Further, respondents Publiciana, and Quieting of Title with Damages, the trial
failed to show that the Affidavit executed by Sixto to the court, dismissed petitioners complaint and ordered them
effect that he is the sole owner of the subject property was to pay attorneys fees.
known or made known to the other co-heirs of Leocadio
Medrano. On appeal, the appellate court, a affirmed that of the trial
court, minus the award of attorneys fees.
VDA DE GUALBERTO VS GO
FACTS: ISSUES:
Petitioners are the heirs of the late Generoso I. WHETHER OR NOT A TITLED PROPERTY
Gualberto, former registered owner of a parcel of land CAN BE THE SUBJECT OF A FREE
situated at Redor Street, Barangay Redor, Siniloan, PATENT TITLE.
Laguna under Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 9203,
containing an area of 169.59 square meters, more or less, II. WHETHER AN ACTION FOR
and declared for taxation purposes under Tax Declaration RECONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY BASED
No. 4869. ON A NULLITY OF TITLE PRESCRIBES.
SO ORDERED.