Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Re: Prescription
Facts:
Here, prescription cannot be invoked.
There is a parcel of land in the names of the Bailons (Rosalia,
Gaudencio, Sabina Bernabe, Nenita and Delia) as co-owners, each Pursuant to NCC 494, no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the
with a 1/6 share. co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime the partition
of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.
Gaudencio and Nenita are now dead, (Nenita being represented in
this case by her children) o Bernabe went to China and had not In Budiong v. Bondoc , SC has interpreted that provision to
been heard from since It appears that Rosalia and Gaudencio sold mean that the action for partition is imprescriptible or cannot
a portion of the land to Donato Delgado. Rosalia alone, then sold the be barred by prescription. For NCC 494 explicitly declares: No
remainder of the land to Ponciana Aresgado de Lanuza. prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co- heir so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
On the same date, Lanuza acquired from Delgado land which the
Delgado had earlier acquired from Rosalia and Gaudencio. Husband Also, the disputed parcel of land being registered under the Torrens
John Lanuza, acting under a special power of attorney given by his System, the express provision of Act No. 496 that no title to
wife, Ponciana, sold the two parcels of land to Celestino Afable, Sr. registered land in derogation to that of the registered owner shall
In all these transfers, it was stated in the deeds of sale that the land be acquired by prescription or adverse possession is applicable.
was not registered under the provisions of Act No. 496 when the fact
is that it is. o It appears that the land had been successively Prescription will not lie in favor of Afable as against the Bailons who
declared for taxation first, in the name of Ciriaca Dellamas, mother of remain the registered owners of the parcel of land.
the co-owners, then in the name of Rosalia Bailon, then in that of
Donato Delgado, then in Ponciana de Lanuza's name, and finally
in the name of Celestino Afable, Sr. Re: Argument of Bailons that as to the children who represent
their deceased mother, Nenita, prescription lies
The petitioners in this case, the Bailons, filed a case for recovery of
property against Celestino Afable. In his answer, Afable claimed that It is argued, that as to the children who are not the registered co-
he had acquired the land in question through prescription and said owners but merely represent their deceased mother, prescription
that the Bailons are guilty of laches. lies. (citing Pasion v. Pasion: "the imprescriptibility of a Torrens title
can only be invoked by the person in whose name the title is
LC declared Afable co-owner because he validly bought 2/6 of the registered" and that 'one who is not the registered owner of a parcel
land (the shares of Rosalia and Gaudencio) CA affirmed. of land cannot invoke imprescriptibility of action to claim.'
Prescription does not apply against the Bailons because they are co-
owners of the original sellers. But, an action to recover may Reliance on the previous case is wrong. The ruling there applies
be barred by laches. CA held the Bailons guilty of laches and only against transferees other than direct issues or heirs or to
dismissed their complaint complete strangers. The reason for that is: if prescription is
unavailing against the registered owner, it must be equally unavailing
against the owner's hereditary successors, because they merely
Issue: step into the shoes of the decedent