GR 120864; (October, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. 120864 ; October 8, 2003
MANUEL T. DE GUIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and JOSE B. ABEJO, represented by his Attorney-in-Fact, Hermenegilda Abejo-Rivera, respondents.
FACTS
Jose B. Abejo filed an action for recovery of possession and damages against Manuel T. De Guia concerning a fishpond in Meycauayan, Bulacan. Abejo claimed ownership over a one-half undivided portion of the fishpond, which he purchased from his father in 1983. He alleged that De Guia’s sublease over the entire property, originally granted by the co-owners, had expired in 1979, yet De Guia refused to vacate and surrender possession of Abejo’s share despite repeated demands. De Guia, a lawyer representing himself, contested Abejo’s ownership and claimed he himself owned an undivided half, having acquired it from other heirs. He also asserted that Abejo’s action had prescribed and sought reimbursement for improvements as a builder in good faith.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Abejo’s action for recovery of possession had prescribed, and whether De Guia could acquire ownership over Abejo’s share through prescription.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied De Guia’s petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court held that the action had not prescribed because the parties were co-owners of the undivided fishpond. Prescription does not run between co-owners as long as the co-ownership is recognized. De Guia’s continued possession after the lease expired was not in the concept of an owner repudiating the co-ownership, but merely as a holder under a lease agreement. For prescription to commence against a co-owner, there must be a clear, open, and unequivocal act of repudiation communicated to the other co-owners. De Guia’s mere possession and failure to pay rent did not constitute such repudiation. Furthermore, by filing a pre-trial brief where the only issue raised was the amount of rental damages owed to Abejo, De Guia effectively acknowledged Abejo’s claim and the underlying co-ownership, negating any claim of adverse possession. Thus, Abejo retained his right to seek possession and recover damages for the unjust use of his property share.