G.R. No. 139524 ; October 12, 2000
PHILIP C. SANTOS and HEIRS OF ELISEO M. SANTOS, petitioners, vs. LADISLAO M. SANTOS represented herein by his Attorney-In-Fact NOE M. SANTOS, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a parcel of land owned by Isidra M. Santos, who died intestate and without issue in 1967. She was survived by her two brothers, Ladislao and Eliseo Santos. Ladislao, through his attorney-in-fact, filed a complaint for judicial partition against Eliseo and Eliseo’s son, Philip. Ladislao alleged that upon Isidra’s death, he and Eliseo inherited her property in equal, pro indiviso shares. He discovered later that tax declarations over the property had been issued in the names of Virgilio Santos (another son of Eliseo) and later Philip Santos, based on a 1980 deed of sale executed by Virgilio in Philip’s favor.
The respondents (Eliseo and Philip) claimed that the brothers had agreed to partition their father’s estate (Lot 1522) in 1969, wherein the Isidra property was adjudicated to Eliseo to equalize shares, and that Virgilio, who was raised by Isidra, eventually became the owner. They further asserted that they had acquired the property through acquisitive prescription. The trial court dismissed Ladislao’s complaint, citing failure of proof and prescription. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether Ladislao M. Santos is entitled to judicial partition of the property inherited from his sister Isidra, and whether his claim is barred by prescription or laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, declaring Ladislao and Eliseo each entitled to a one-half (½) pro indiviso share in the Isidra property and ordering its partition. The Court held that upon Isidra’s intestate death, her brothers inherited the property as co-owners in equal shares. The respondents failed to prove a valid partition or transfer that extinguished this co-ownership. The alleged 1969 “Combined Deed of Partition” was never presented in its original form; only unverified photocopies were offered, which are inadmissible as secondary evidence without accounting for the original. Testimonies regarding its contents were correctly deemed hearsay.
On prescription, the Court ruled that an action for partition among co-owners is imprescriptible. A co-owner’s possession is deemed for the benefit of all co-owners, and mere possession does not constitute repudiation of the co-ownership unless there is clear, conclusive proof of an unequivocal act of denial of the co-owner’s right, communicated to the other. No such repudiation was proven here. Consequently, laches does not bar the action. Since co-ownership was established, the property must be partitioned in accordance with Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.