Insufficient proof

philstar.com /opinion/675824/insufficient-proof

Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-heirs or co-owners absent a clear
repudiation of the co-ownership. This is the rule applied in this case of the heirs of Julia.

Julia was the owner of a piece of land in her province which she inherited from her parents. The land was not yet
registered under the Torrens system although a tax declaration was issued in her name for tax purposes. Prior to
1966, Cardo, the eldest among the heirs, had a house constructed on the land but when he and his wife separated
they left and just had it leased to third parties.

On May 15, 1978, Juanita executed a written instrument stating that she would be leaving behind to her children
said land she inherited from her parents. Hence after her death on March 23, 1989, the heirs sent word to their
eldest brother Cardo regarding their plans to partition the land.

However, in a letter dated June 5, 1998, written by Cardo addressed to them, the heirs were surprised to find out
that Cardo had declared the land for himself. They discovered that Julia their mother had allegedly executed a
notarized Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property in Cardos favor way back on June 4, 1966 and that subsequently the
property was transferred to Doming by virtue of a Deed of Sale executed by his daughters Virgie and Josie without
any proof that the latter had authority to do so and that Cardo consented or acquiesced to the sale.

So on October 26, 2001, the heirs of Julia filed an action with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) for recovery of
ownership, possession, partition and damages against Doming.

The RTC however dismissed the case on the ground of prescription. The RTC ruled that said case was filed only in
2001 or more than 30 years since the Affidavit of Transfer of Real Property in favor of Cardo was executed by Julia
on June 4, 1966. The RTC explained that while the right of an heir to an inheritance does not prescribe, yet when
one of the co-heirs appropriates the property as his own to the exclusion of all the other heirs, then prescription can
set in. Was the RTC correct?

Opinion ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch: 1

No. Cardo and his brother and sisters are co-heirs or co-owners of the land. Co-heirs or co-owners cannot acquire
by prescription the share of the other co-heirs absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership as expressed in Article
494 of the Civil Code. In other words the co-heirs possession must be adverse to the other co-heirs. So, in order that
Cardos possession may be deemed adverse to the other co-heirs, the following requisites must concur: (1) that he
has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co-heirs; (2) that such positive
acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-heirs; and that the evidence thereon is clear and
convincing.

In this case, Cardo appeared to have complied with the requisites. Through a letter dated June 5, 1998, Cardo
notified his co-heirs that he adjudicated the land solely for himself. Accordingly, his interest in the land had become
adverse.

But even then, the prescriptive period began to run only from June 5, 1998, the date the co-heirs received notice of
Cardos repudiation of their claims to the land. Since the co-heirs filed the petition before the RTC on October 26,
2001, only a mere three years had lapse which falls short of the 10 year or the 30 year acquisitive prescription
period required by law in order to be entitled to claim legal ownership over the land. Thus Doming cannot invoke
acquisitive prescription.

It is erroneous for Doming to argue that based on the Affidavit of Julia in 1966, Cardos possession and the
1/2
prescriptive period began in said year. Said affidavit does not show by itself that Cardos possession of the land had
been open, continuous and exclusive since 1966 or for more than 30 years. In fact after 1966 Cardo left the land and
moved to another place when he separated from his wife. Besides Doming failed to show that Cardo had the land
declared for tax purposes from 1966 after the affidavit was executed until 2001 when the case was filed. Although a
tax declaration does not prove ownership, it is evidence of claim to possession of the land. Thus the RTC should try
the case on the merits to determine who among the parties are legally entitled to the land (Heirs of Padilla vs.
Magdua, G.R. 176858, September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 573).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available.
Call Tel. 7249445.

***

E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net

2/2