GR 152364; (April, 2010) (Digest)
G.R. No. 152364; April 15, 2010
ALEJANDRA S. LAZARO, ET AL., Petitioners, vs. MODESTA AGUSTIN, ET AL., Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners, descendants of the late Simeon C. Santos, filed a complaint for partition against respondents, the heirs of Basilisa Santos-Agustin. They alleged that the subject lot, originally owned by Simeon, was titled solely in the name of Basilisa, the eldest sibling, based on a family agreement among Simeon’s four children that she would hold it in trust for all. Petitioners claimed that after Basilisa’s death, her children (respondents) caused the transfer of the title to their names alone and refused to partition the property, asserting exclusive ownership.
Respondents countered that the lot was the exclusive property of their mother, Basilisa, having been acquired through a homestead patent. They argued that the Torrens title in her name was conclusive evidence of her sole ownership, and that petitioners’ claim of an implied trust had already prescribed.
ISSUE
Whether an action for partition based on co-ownership is the proper remedy, or whether the case is one for reconveyance based on an implied trust which has prescribed.
RULING
The Supreme Court ruled that the action for partition was improper and dismissed the petition. The Court held that an action for partition presupposes the existence of a co-ownership. Here, the property was registered under the Torrens system in the name of Basilisa Santos alone. A certificate of title serves as incontrovertible evidence of ownership. For petitioners to claim a share, they must first conclusively establish that they are co-owners by overcoming this presumption.
The allegations of a trust arrangement, where Basilisa held title for the benefit of her siblings, actually characterize the action as one for reconveyance based on an implied trust, not partition. However, such an action prescribes in ten years from the issuance of the original certificate of title. The title was issued in 1960, and the complaint was filed only in 1998, well beyond the prescriptive period. Consequently, the title in the respondents’ names had become indefeasible. The Court found no reversible error in the lower courts’ decisions, which correctly upheld the respondents’ exclusive ownership.