G.R. No. 111257 December 4, 1998.
Mercedes Deiparine, Rufina Deiparine, Policarpio Deiparine, Nicholas Deiparine, Francisco Deiparine, Jr., Arsenio Deiparine, Dina Canada, Theresa Deiparine, Solita Deiparine, Julio Deiparine, Teofilo Deiparine, Eleuterio Deiparine, Dante Deiparine, Estrella Deiparine, and Nicholas Deiparine, petitioners, vs. Honorable Court of Appeals (First Division), Vicenta Deiparine, Fortunato Deiparine, Felicisima Deiparine, Salvador Deiparine, Jr., Restituta Deiparine, Children and Heirs of deceased Salvador Deiparine, Jr., Ireneo Larao, Domingo Larao, and Concepcion Larao, Children and Heirs of deceased Filomena Deiparine; Froilan Seguerra, only son and Heirs of Late Supriana Deiparine; Ignacia Deiparine, Ana Deiparine, and Pedro Deiparine, Children and Heirs of deceased Segundo Deiparine, Rufo Abalo, Aurelia Abalao and Magdalena Abalao, Children and Heirs of deceased Macaria Deiparine, Leo D. Bacus, Pedro D. Bacus, Dorica D. Bacus, Dionisio D. Bacus, and Prudy D. Bacus, Heirs of deceased Justiniana Deiparine, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a petition for partition of Lot 1938 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate in Cebu, originally owned by Marcelo Deiparine. Upon his death in 1929, the lot was inherited by his wife Leona Caballero and children Francisca, Filomena, Salvador, Supriana, Segundo, Justiniana, Macaria, and Manuel Deiparine. In 1930, the lot was subdivided into Lot 1938-A and Lot 1938-B. Manuel Deiparine took possession of Lot 1938-A, and upon his death, his heirs continued possession. Lot 1938-B was sold to Justiniana Deiparine in 1933, and her heirs (the Bacuses) took possession. In 1982, the heirs of Salvador, Filomena, Supriana, Segundo, and Macaria Deiparine filed a complaint for partition against the heirs of Manuel and Justiniana Deiparine. During the pendency of the case, the heirs of Manuel Deiparine executed an Extra-Judicial Declaration of Heirs over Lot 1938-A and successfully petitioned for judicial reconstitution of title, resulting in TCT No. RT-3834 (NA) issued in Manuel Deiparine’s name. The plaintiffs amended their complaint to seek nullification of the reconstituted title and the deed of sale for Lot 1938-B. The trial court ruled in favor of the defendants, citing laches and estoppel. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, declaring the heirs as co-owners, ordering partition, nullifying TCT No. RT-3834 (NA), and requiring an accounting of fruits. The heirs of Manuel Deiparine elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The primary issues are: (1) whether the heirs of Marcelo Deiparine are co-owners of Lots 1938-A and 1938-B; (2) whether the defense of laches, estoppel, and prescription bars the action for partition; and (3) whether the reconstituted title (TCT No. RT-3834 (NA)) is valid.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that upon Marcelo Deiparine’s death, his heirs became co-owners of the subject lot. The subdivision of the lot did not terminate the co-ownership, as there was no evidence of a valid partition or repudiation by Manuel Deiparine. The action for partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. The deed of sale for Lot 1938-B was valid only to the extent of the selling heirs’ shares, making the Bacuses co-owners of the portion sold. The reconstituted title was declared null and void as it was obtained during the pendency of the partition case and through a petition containing a false allegation that no case was pending involving the property. The Court ordered the partition of the lots among the heirs according to their determined shares and required an accounting of the fruits from the filing of the complaint.