G.R. No. 83885 , December 29, 1989
SPS. NICANOR A. CATRAL and LOURDES TEANO CATRAL, Substituted by Their Heirs, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PAULA DICHOSO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves a 3-hectare northern portion of a larger parcel originally owned by Sebastian Dichoso. After his death, his children Mateo, Paula, and Maxima became co-owners. On April 27, 1951, Mateo, with his sisters’ consent, sold the eastern third of the property to petitioner Nicanor Catral for P250.00, evidenced by a private writing. Following a redivision among the co-owners on February 29, 1956, Mateo’s share was adjusted to the northern portion. Consequently, Mateo executed a notarized Escritura de Compraventa (Deed of Sale) conveying the northern third to Catral in lieu of the eastern third. Catral took possession, declared the land in his name, paid taxes, and cultivated it until December 27, 1957, when respondents, after Mateo’s death, forcibly dispossessed him.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondent Paula Dichoso, finding she acquired sole ownership through acquisitive prescription. The courts accepted her claim that she acquired the property from her sister Domina in 1924 and possessed it continuously thereafter. Petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court via a petition for review on certiorari.

ISSUE

Who has the better title to the disputed property?

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The legal logic centered on the superiority of the petitioners’ documented title and the inapplicability of prescription among co-owners. The 1956 Escritura de Compraventa is a public document that conclusively evidences the sale from Mateo, a co-owner, to the petitioners. This deed confirmed the earlier 1951 sale and lawfully conveyed Mateo’s allotted northern share following the redivision. In contrast, Paula’s claim of ownership derived from an unproven 1924 sale from Domina was unsupported by any documentary evidence. The alleged holographic will of Sebastian Dichoso, from which Domina supposedly derived her title, was not probated and was invalid under the then-governing Code of Civil Procedure.
Critically, the Court held that prescription could not run in Paula’s favor against her co-owners. The property was held in common by Mateo, Paula, and Maxima. Paula and Maxima’s consent to Mateo’s initial 1951 sale, by signing the private writing, was an express recognition of the co-ownership. Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no prescription runs between co-owners as long as the co-ownership is recognized. Paula’s subsequent claim of exclusive ownership was inconsistent with her prior conduct. Furthermore, petitioners’ open possession, tax declarations, and cultivation from 1956 constituted a clear assertion of ownership. Respondents’ act of wresting possession only after Mateo’s death was a mere pretension. Therefore, petitioners were declared absolute owners and entitled to possession.