Heirs of Feliciano Yambao V Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao - Full Text

Heirs of Feliciano Yambao v.
Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao

GR No. 194260
FULL TEXT
FACTS
The subject of this case is a parcel of land located in Barangay Bangan,

Botolan, Zambales, which was originally possessed by Macaria De Ocampo
(Macaria). Macaria's nephew, Hermogenes Yambao (Hermogenes), acted as the
administrator of the property and paid realty taxes therefor. Hermogenes has eight
children, namely: Ulpiano, Dominic, Teofilo, Feliciano, Asesclo, Delia, Amelia, and
Melinda, all surnamed Yambao.
After Hermogenes died, it was claimed that all of his heirs were free to pick
and harvest from the fruit-bearing trees planted on the subject property. Eleanor
Yambao (Eleanor), Ulpiano's daughter, even constructed a house on the subject
property. However, sometime in 2005, the communal and mutual use of the subject
property by the heirs of Hermogenes ceased when the heirs of Feliciano, herein
petitioners, prohibited them from entering the property. The heirs of Feliciano even
ejected Eleanor from the subject property.
This prompted the heirs of Hermogenes, herein respondents, to file with the
RTC a complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of title/documents, and damages
against the heirs of Feliciano. The heirs of Hermogenes alleged that they and the
heirs of Feliciano are co-owners of the subject property, having inherited the right
thereto from Hermogenes.
The heirs of Feliciano denied the allegations of the heirs of Hermogenes and
claimed that their father, Feliciano, was in possession of the subject property in the
concept of owner since time immemorial. Accordingly, Feliciano was awarded a free
patent thereon for which Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10737 was issued.
They also averred that the cause of action in the complaint filed by the heirs of
Hermogenes, which questioned the validity of OCT No. P-10737, prescribed after
the lapse of one year from its issuance on November 29, 1989.
RULING OF THE RTC
On December 23, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the

complaint filed by the heirs of Hermogenes. The RTC opined that the heirs of
Hermogenes failed to show that the subject property is owned by Macaria, stating
that tax declarations and receipts in Macaria's name are not conclusive evidence of
ownership. The RTC further held that even if Macaria owned the subject property,
the heirs of Hermogenes failed to show that Hermogenes had the right to succeed
over the estate of Macaria.
RULING OF THE CA
On appeal, the CA, in its Decision 7 dated October 22, 2010, reversed and
set aside the RTC's Decision dated December 23, 2008. The CA found that the RTC,
in hastily dismissing the complaint for partition, failed to determine first whether
the subject property is indeed co-owned by the heirs of Hermogenes and the heirs
of Feliciano. The CA pointed out that:
A review of the records of the case shows that in Feliciano's application

for free patent, he acknowledged that the source of his claim of possession
over the subject property was Hermogenes's possession of the real property
in peaceful, open, continuous, and adverse manner and more importantly, in
the concept of an owner, since 1944. Feliciano's claim of sole possession in
his application for free patent did not therefore extinguish the fact of co-
ownership as claimed by the children of Hermogenes.
Accordingly, the CA, considering that the parties are co-owners of the subject
property, ruled that the RTC should have conducted the appropriate proceedings for
partition.
Aggrieved, the heirs of Feliciano filed with the Court this petition for review
alleging that the CA erred in ruling that there is co-ownership between them and
the heirs of Hermogenes. The heirs of Feliciano likewise averred that the CA also
erred in ordering the partition of the subject property since it amounts to a
collateral attack on the validity of OCT No. P-10737.
RULING OF THE COURT
The petition is denied.
As pointed out by the CA, the R TC overlooked the fact that the subject
property is co-owned by the parties herein, having inherited the same from
Hermogenes. Feliciano's free patent application indicated that he merely tacked his
possession of the subject property from Hermogenes, his father, who held the
property in peaceful, open, continuous, and adverse manner in the concept of an
owner since 1944. This is an implicit recognition of the fact that Feliciano merely
co-owns the subject property with the other heirs of Hermogenes. Indeed, the heirs
of Feliciano have not presented any evidence that would show that Hermogenes
bequeathed the subject property solely to Feliciano.
A co-ownership is a form of trust, with each owner being a trustee for each
other. Mere actual possession by one will not give rise to the inference that the
possession was adverse because a co-owner is, after all, entitled to possession of
the property. Thus, as a rule, prescription does not run-in favor of a co-heir or co-
owner as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership; and he
cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear
repudiation of the co-ownership. An action to demand partition among co-owners is
imprescriptible, and each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the
common property.
Prescription may nevertheless run against a co-owner if there is adverse, open,

continuous and exclusive possession of the co-owned property by the other co-
owner/s.1âwphi1 In order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to
the cestui que trust or other co-owners, the following requisites must concur:
1. that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an

ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners;
2. that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui
que trust or other co-owners; and
3. that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.
The issuance of the certificate of title would constitute an open and clear
repudiation of any trust. In such a case, an action to demand partition among co-
owners prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of the issuance
of certificate of title over the property. But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is
not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof
is in actual possession of the property, the right to demand partition does not
prescribe.
Although OCT No. P-10737 was registered in the name of Feliciano on November
29, 1989, the prescriptive period within which to demand partition of the subject
property, contrary to the claim of the heirs of Feliciano, did not begin to run. At that
time, the heirs of Hermogenes were still in possession of the property. It was only
in 2005 that the heirs of Feliciano expressly prohibited the heirs of Hermogenes
from entering the property. Thus, as aptly ruled by the CA, the right of the heirs of
Hermogenes to demand the partition of the property had not yet prescribed.
Accordingly, the RTC committed a reversible error when it dismissed the complaint
for partition that was filed by the heirs of Hermogenes.
There is likewise no merit to the claim that the action for partition filed by the
heirs of Hermogenes amounted to a collateral attack on the validity of OCT No. P-
10737. The complaint for partition filed by the heirs of Hermogenes seeks first, a
declaration that they are a co-owner of the subject property, and second, the
conveyance of their lawful shares. The heirs of Hermogenes do not attack the title
of Feliciano; they alleged no fraud, mistake, or any other irregularity that would
justify a review of the registration decree in their favor. Their theory is that
although the subject property was registered solely in Feliciano's name, they are
co-owners of the property and as such is entitled to the conveyance of their shares.
On the premise that they are co-owners, they can validly seek the partition of the
property in co-ownership and the conveyance to them of their respective shares.
Moreover, when Feliciano registered the subject property in his name, to the
exclusion of the other heirs of Hermogenes, an implied trust was created by force of
law and he was considered a trustee of the undivided shares of the other heirs of
Hermogenes in the property. As trustees, the heirs of Feliciano cannot be permitted
to repudiate the trust by relying on the registration. "A trustee who obtains a
Torrens title over a property held in trust for him by another cannot repudiate the
trust by relying on the registration."
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is

hereby DENIED. The Decision dated October 22, 2010 issued by the Court of
Appeals in CA-G.R. CV No. 92755 is AFFIRMED.
SO ORDERED.

Heirs of Feliciano Yambao V Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao - Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Feliciano Yambao V Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao - Full Text

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Feliciano Yambao V Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao - Full Text

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Feliciano Yambao v.

Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao

The subject of this case is a parcel of land located in Barangay Bangan,

RULING OF THE RTC

On December 23, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the

A review of the records of the case shows that in Feliciano's application

RULING OF THE COURT

The petition is denied.

Prescription may nevertheless run against a co-owner if there is adverse, open,

1. that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an

3. that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.

WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing disquisitions, the petition is

You might also like