Paulmitan v.

CA

G.R. No. 61584, November 25, 1992

The dispute covers 2 lots, Lot 757 and Lot 1091, which were owned by Agatona Paulmitan. She had 2 children, Pascual
and Donato. Pascual’s (7) children (Alicio, Elena, Abelino, Adelina, Anita, Baking, Anito) are the respondents and Donato
and his daughter and son-in-law are petitioners. Donato executed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship, adjudicating to
himself Lot 757 claiming that he is the sole surviving heir thus the OCT of Agatona was cancelled and a TCT was issued in
his name. He executed a deed of sale of Lot 1091 in favor of his daughter, Juliana. For non-payment of taxes, the lot was
forfeited and sole at a public to the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental, however, Juliana was able to redeem
the property. Upon learning these, the children of Pascual filed w/ the CFI a complaint against petitioners to partition
the land plus damages. Petitioners’ defense was that the action has already prescribed for it was filed more than 11
years after the issuance of the TCT and that Juliana has acquired exclusive ownership thru the Deed of Sale and by
redeeming the said property. The CFI dismissed the complaint and became final and executory. With respect to Lot
1091, the court decided in favor of respondents. They are entitled to ½ of Lot 1091, pro indiviso. The redemption did not
in anyway prejudice their rights. The land was ordered to be partitioned and the petitioners were ordered to pay the
respondents their share of the fruits and the respondents to pay their share in the redemption of the land. The CA
affirmed the decision thus the case at bar.

ISSUE:

(1) Whether or not Pascual’s children and Donato and Juliana were co-owners of their mother’s lot

(2) Whether or not Juliana acquired full ownership by redeeming the property

RULING:

YES: When Agatona died, her estate was still unpartitioned. Art. 1078 states that “Where there are 2 or more heirs, the
whole estate of the decedent is, before its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of
the deceased”. Since Pascual and Donato were still alive when she died, they are co-owners of the estate. When Pascual
died, his children succeeded him in the co-ownership of the property.

When Donato sold to his daughter the lot, he was only a co-owner of the same thus he can only sell his undivided
portion of the property. Art. 493 states that “each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and even substitute another
person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.” Only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred making the buyer (Juliana) a co-
owner.

NO: When she redeemed the property, it did not end the co-ownership. The right of repurchase may be exercised by a
co-owner w/ respect to his/her share alone as stated in Art. 1612. But she may compel them to reimburse her for half of
the repurchase price for a co-owner has the right to compel other co-owners to contribute to the expenses for the
preservation of the thing and to taxes.
BUCTON V. GABAR

G.R. No. L-36359, January 31, 1974

Facts:

In 1946, Josefina bought a parcel of land fr. the Villarin spouses, payable in installments. Josefina, then entered into a
verbal agreement w/ Nicanora whereby the latter would pay 1/2 of the price (P3,000.00) & would then own 1/2 of the
land. Nicanora paid P1,000 in 1946 & P400 in 1948. Both were evidenced by receipts issued by Josefina. After payment
of the P1,000, Nicanora took possession of the portion of the land indicated to them by Josefina & built thereon a nipa
house. Subsequently, the nipa house was demolished & replaced by a house of strong materials, w/ 3 apartments for
rental purposes. In 1947, the Villarin spouses executed a deed of sale in favor of Josefina. Nicanora then sought to
obtain a separate title for their portion of the land but Josefina refused on the ground that the entire land was still
mortgaged w/ the PNB as guarantee for a loan. Nicanora continued enjoying possession of their portion of the land,
planting fruit trees & receiving rentals fr. the buildings. In 1953, w/ Josefina’s consent, Nicanora had the land resurveyed
& subdivided preparatory to their obtaining separate titles thereto. A fence was thereafter erected to demarcate the
division. Nicanora continued to insist on obtaining a separate title but Josefina refused. Nicanora engaged the services of
Atty. Bonifacio Regalado, & then Atty. Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. to intercede, but to no avail. Hence, case in TC. TC rendered
judgment for Nicanora. On appeal, the CA reversed on the ground that since Nicanora’s right of action is allegedly based
on the receipt executed in 1946, the same has prescribed pursuant to Art. 1144 of the CC w/c must be brought w/in 10
years fr. the time the right of action accrues. When the complaint was filed, 22 years & 26 days had elapsed. Hence this
appeal.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the action of Nicanora has prescribed.

HELD:

The real & ultimate basis of Nicanora’s action is their ownership of 1/2 of the lot coupled w/ their possession thereof,
w/c entitles them to a conveyance of the property. In Sapto, et. al. vs. Fabiana, the Court, through J.B.L. Reyes, explained
that under the circumstances, no enforcement of the contract is needed, since the delivery of the possession of the land
sold had consummated the sale & transferred title to the purchaser, & that, actually, the action for conveyance is one to
quiet title, i.e., to remove the cloud upon Nicanora’s ownership by the refusal of the Josefina to recognize the sale
made. We held therein: “The prevailing rule is that refusal of the Josefina to recognize the sale made by their
predecessors. We held therein that "... it is an established rule of American jurisprudence (made applicable in this
jurisdiction by Art. 480 of the New Civil Code) that actions to quiet title to property in the possession of the plaintiff are
imprescriptible (44 Am. Jur. p. 47; Cooper vs. Rhea, 20 L.R.A. 930; Inland Empire Land Co. vs. Grant County, 138 Wash.
439, 245 Pac. 14).