Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 464 views

    Ceniza Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Carmille Magno
    The Supreme Court ruled that the registration of land solely in the name of one co-owner, Vicente Dabon, did not constitute repudiation of co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and private respondents were co-owners of the land through their predecessors-in-interest. While the land was registered under Dabon's name alone, it was done for convenience since Jose Ceniza and Dabon purchased the land jointly. For prescription to run against co-owners, the co-ownership must be repudiated and the repudiation made known to the other co-owners, which did not occur. Thus, petitioners' right

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Ceniza Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Carmille Magno
    464 views2 pages
    The Supreme Court ruled that the registration of land solely in the name of one co-owner, Vicente Dabon, did not constitute repudiation of co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and private respondents were co-owners of the land through their predecessors-in-interest. While the land was registered under Dabon's name alone, it was done for convenience since Jose Ceniza and Dabon purchased the land jointly. For prescription to run against co-owners, the co-ownership must be repudiated and the repudiation made known to the other co-owners, which did not occur. Thus, petitioners' right

    Original Title

    Ceniza vs CA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that the registration of land solely in the name of one co-owner, Vicente Dabon, did not constitute repudiation of co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and private respondents were co-owners of the land through their predecessors-in-interest. While the land was registered under Dabon's name alone, it was done for convenience since Jose Ceniza and Dabon purchased the land jointly. For prescription to run against co-owners, the co-ownership must be repudiated and the repudiation made known to the other co-owners, which did not occur. Thus, petitioners' right

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    464 views2 pages

    Ceniza Vs CA

    Uploaded by

    Carmille Magno
    The Supreme Court ruled that the registration of land solely in the name of one co-owner, Vicente Dabon, did not constitute repudiation of co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and private respondents were co-owners of the land through their predecessors-in-interest. While the land was registered under Dabon's name alone, it was done for convenience since Jose Ceniza and Dabon purchased the land jointly. For prescription to run against co-owners, the co-ownership must be repudiated and the repudiation made known to the other co-owners, which did not occur. Thus, petitioners' right

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Ceniza vs CA

    G.R. No. L-46345 January 30, 1990

    FACTS:
    Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza filed against private respondents Dabon, an action for
    recovery of their title to two lots situated in Mandaue City, Cebu. The property is covered by
    reconstituted OCT in the name of “Vicente Dabon married to Marcela Caniza). Petitioners are
    the descendants of Manuel Ceniza while the private respondents are the descendants of his
    sister, Sofia Ceniza. The latter was childless but adoped a daughter, who begot a name Marced
    Ceniza and who in turn had a daughter name Marcelina Ceniza who married to Vicente Dabon.
    Private respondents are the children of their marriage and they are the great great
    grandchildren of Sofia Ceniza.

    Manuel Ceniza had an only son, Pablo, who had two sons Santiago and Jose Ceniza.
    Petitioners Ceniza and a certain Albina are the children and the great-grandchildren of Manuel
    Ceniza.

    The records show that when Hacienda de Mandue was subdivided for resale for the occupants,
    Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon purchased the lot on installment basis jointly. They agreed to
    register it under the name of Vicente Dabon alone for convenience. After the death of
    Dabon, his seven children succeeded to his possession of a portion of land.

    A private surveyor on the request of Jacinta Dabon and Restituto Ceniza divided the lot in three
    parts. A controversy arose when the predecessor-in-interest of Vincente Dabon refused to
    convey 2 lots to the petitioners and contended that their father was the sole and exclusive
    owner of the lot that was divided in three parts.

    Petitioners replied that Vicente Dabon held the land in trust for them, as co-owners, hence, their
    action for reconveyance was imprescriptible. The trial court rendered in favor for the petitioners
    and ordered private respondents to execute a deed of conveyance in favor of the plaintiffs.

    On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and ruled that the petitioners right of
    action had prescribed after the lapse of 20 years from the date of registration of the land.
    Petitioner filed a petition for review under Rule 45 with the SC.

    ISSUE:
    Whether or not the registration of the title of the land in the name of one of the co-owners
    constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription.

    RULING:
    No. The TC correctly ruled that since a trust relation and co-ownership were proven to exist
    between the predecessors-in-interest of both petitioners and private respondents, prescription
    did not run in favor of Dabon's heirs except from the time that they repudiated the co-ownership
    and made the repudiation known to the other co-owners, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza.

    The registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in favor of his co-
    owner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452 of the Civil Code states: "If two or more
    persons agree to purchase property and by common consent the legal title is taken in the name
    of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in
    proportion to the interest of each."
    The Court has ruled in numerous cases involving fiduciary relations that, as a general rule, the
    trustee's possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen into a title by prescription.
    Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the following circumstances:
    a) that the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to the ouster of the
    cestui que trust;
    b) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust; and
    c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.

    The above elements are not present here for the petitioners co-owners have not been ousted
    from the land. They continue to possess their respective shares of Lot 627 and they have been
    paying the realty taxes thereon. Restituto's house stands on his portion of the Land. In this
    case, since the statutory period of limitation within which to file an action for reconveyance, after
    the defendants had repudiated the co-ownership in 1961, had not yet run its course when the
    petitioners 􏰃led said action in 1967, the action was not barred by prescription.

    You might also like