TOPIC: OBLIGATIONS, in general

G.R. No. 202578, September 27, 2017

HEIRS OF GILBERTO ROLDAN v. HEIRS OF SILVELA ROLDAN AND HEIRS OF LEOPOLDO
MAGTULIS

Natalia Magtulis6 owned x x x an agricultural land in Kalibo, Aklan x x x Her heirs included Gilberto Roldan
and Silvela Roldan, her two children by her first marriage; and, allegedly, Leopolda Magtulis her child with
another man named Juan Aguirre.8 After her death in 1961, Natalia left the lot to her children. However,
Gilberta and his heirs took possession of the property to the exclusion of respondents.

On 19 May 2003, respondents filed before the RTC a Complaint for Partition and Damages against
petitioners.9 The latter refused to yield the property on these grounds: (1) respondent heirs of Silvela had
already sold her share to Gilberto; and (2) respondent heirs of Leopolda had no cause of action, given
that he was not a child of Natalia.

x x x CA affirmed the ruling of the RTC that Gilberto, Silvela, and Leopoldo remained co-owners of Lot
No. 4696. The appellate court refused to conclude that Silvela had sold her shares to Gilberto without any
document evidencing a sales transaction. It also held that Leopoldo was the son of Natalia, since his
Certificate of Baptism and Marriage Contract indicated her as his mother.

Petitioner heirs of Gilberto moved for reconsideration,12 but to no avail. Before this Court, x x x Petitioners
additionally contend that respondents lost their rights over the property, since the action for partition was
lodged before the RTC only in 2003, or 42 years since Gilberto occupied the property in 1961. For the
heirs of Gilberto, prescription and laches already preclude the heirs of Silvela and the heirs of Leopoldo
from claiming co-ownership x x x

Issue: Whether prescription and laches bar respondents from claiming coownership over Lot No. 4696.

Ruling: Prescription cannot be appreciated against the co-owners of a property, absent any conclusive
act of repudiation made clearly known to the other coowners.32

x x x Aside from the mere passage of time, there was failure on the part of petitioners to substantiate their
allegation of laches by proving that respondents slept on their rights.33 Nevertheless, had they done so,
two grounds deter them from successfully claiming the existence of prescription and laches.

First, as demanded by the repudiation requisite for prescription to be appreciated, there is a need to
determine the veracity of factual matters such as the date when the period to bring the action commenced
to run. In Macababbad, Jr. v. Masirag,34 we considered that determination as factual in nature. The same
is true in relation to finding the existence of laches x x x Since petitions for review on certiorari under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, as in this case, entertain questions of law,36 petitioners claim of prescription and
laches fail.

Second, petitioners have alleged prescription and laches only before this Court. Raising a new ground for
the first time on appeal contravenes due process, as that act deprives the adverse party of the opportunity
to contest the assertion of the claimant.37 Since respondents were not able to refute the issue of
prescription and laches, this Court denies the newly raised contention of petitioners.

WHEREFORE, the Petition for Review on Certiorari filed by petitioner heirs of Gilberto Roldan
is PARTIALLY GRANTED. The Court of Appeals Decision MODIFIED to read as follows:

1. Only the heirs of Gilberta Roldan and Silvela Roldan are declared co-owners of the land covered by
Original Certificate of Title No. P-7711, which should be partitioned among them in the following
proportions: a. One-half share to the heirs of Gilberta Roldan; and b. One-half share to the heirs of Silvela
Roldan.
2. Petitioners are ordered to account for and deliver to the heirs of Silvela Roldan their one-half share on
the produce of the land. SO ORDERED.