G.R. No. 109910 . April 5, 1995.
REMEDIOS G. SALVADOR and GRACIA G. SALVADOR, petitioners, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ALBERTO and ELPIA YABO, FRANCISCA YABO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

Alipio Yabo owned Lots 6080 and 6180. Upon his death, his nine children inherited them as co-owners. Pastor Makibalo, husband of one heir, Maria Yabo, filed a complaint to quiet title, claiming ownership over 8/9 of the lots by purchasing the shares of seven co-heirs and inheriting his wife’s share. Subsequently, other heirs of Alipio Yabo filed a separate complaint for partition and quieting of title against Pastor Makibalo and the spouses Eulogio and Remedios Salvador, to whom Pastor had mortgaged and later quitclaimed his rights. The cases were consolidated.
The trial court ruled in favor of Pastor Makibalo and the Salvador spouses, declaring Pastor as the owner of the 8/9 portion. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision. It held that Pastor failed to prove the validity of the alleged purchases of the co-heirs’ shares. The appellate court also ruled that the rights of the other co-heirs were not extinguished by prescription or laches, as the possession of Pastor and the Salvadors was in the concept of a co-owner and not adverse to the others.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Pastor Makibalo validly acquired ownership over the shares of his co-heirs; and (2) whether the rights of the other co-heirs were barred by prescription or laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals. On the first issue, the Court found that Pastor Makibalo failed to substantiate his claims of purchase. The documentary evidence he presented, including affidavits of quitclaim, were insufficient to prove valid transfers of ownership, as the vendors themselves or their heirs disputed the authenticity of the signatures and the sales. The purported deeds of sale were not presented, and the affidavits executed years later were inadequate to establish the transactions.
On the second issue, the Court upheld that prescription or laches did not bar the claims of the other co-heirs. A co-owner’s possession is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners, not adverse. For prescription to run, there must be a clear repudiation of the co-ownership communicated to the other co-owners. The Court found no such clear, unequivocal act of repudiation by Pastor Makibalo that was brought to the knowledge of his co-heirs. His mere possession and harvesting of fruits, even if exclusive, did not constitute the required ouster. Therefore, the action for partition remained imprescriptible, and the other heirs retained their rights over the property.