G.R. No. L-47378. February 27, 1987.
MERCEDES U. DE GUZMAN, FRANCISCO P. DE GUZMAN (Deceased) Now His Heirs, Represented by FELICITACION G. ROXAS (Daughter), petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS (Sixth Division), ANTONIO M. AUSTRIA, ROMAN M. UMALI and JULIANA U. TRINIDAD, respondents.

FACTS

The respondents, siblings of petitioner Mercedes de Guzman, filed a complaint for partition in 1973 over a 3-hectare unregistered land in Talisay, Batangas. The parties stipulated that they were the sole heirs of their mother, Teofila Manimtim, who died intestate in 1923. Two days before her death, Teofila sold the land with a right to repurchase within seven years. The petitioners, Mercedes and her husband Francisco, redeemed the property in 1930. Subsequently, the tax declaration was cancelled in Teofila’s name and reissued in Francisco de Guzman’s name, with the petitioners paying the real estate taxes thereafter.
The core dispute centered on whether the 1930 redemption vested ownership exclusively in the petitioners or in all the heirs collectively. The petitioners argued they acquired exclusive ownership through the redemption and, alternatively, through acquisitive prescription, laches, and estoppel, claiming adverse possession since 1930. The respondents maintained they were co-owners entitled to partition.

ISSUE

The primary issue was whether the petitioners acquired exclusive ownership of the disputed property, thereby precluding partition by the respondent heirs.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings, holding that the respondents remained co-owners entitled to partition. The legal logic proceeded from the stipulated facts and applicable law. First, the right of repurchase under the 1923 pacto de retro sale belonged to the vendor, Teofila Manimtim, or her successors-in-interest. Upon her death, this right passed to all her heirs collectively. The 1930 redemption, therefore, inured to the benefit of all co-heirs, not solely to the petitioners. Francisco de Guzman, not being an heir, could not claim exclusive benefit from the redemption.
Second, the Court rejected the claim of acquisitive prescription. The petitioners’ possession was not shown to be adverse and exclusive from 1930. Evidence indicated respondent Antonio Austria resided on and cultivated the land until 1971, sharing in its fruits as a co-owner, not by mere tolerance. Adverse possession, necessary for prescription, commences only upon a clear repudiation of the co-ownership communicated to the other co-owners. The Court found such repudiation occurred only in 1973, immediately before the partition suit was filed, which was insufficient for the required prescriptive period. Tax declarations and tax payments in the petitioners’ name, standing alone, are not conclusive proof of ownership or adverse possession. Consequently, no exclusive ownership was acquired, and the action for partition was proper.