G.R. No. 160956 ; February 13, 2008
JOAQUIN QUIMPO, SR., substituted by Heirs of Joaquin Quimpo, Sr., petitioners, vs. CONSUELO ABAD VDA. DE BELTRAN, IRENEO ABAD, DANILO ABAD, MARITES ABAD, ANITA AND HELEN ABAD, respondents.

FACTS

Eustaquia Perfecto-Abad died intestate in 1948, leaving four parcels of land. Her heirs were her grandchild, Joaquin Quimpo, and her great-grandchildren, the respondents Abads. In 1966, an oral partition of two parcels (III and IV) was undertaken, with half allotted to Joaquin and half to the respondents. No formal deed was executed as Joaquin later refused. Respondents Consuelo and Ireneo occupied their shares, while Joaquin acted as administrator for the shares of the minor respondents. In 1989, when the now-adult minors demanded possession of their shares and sought partition of the remaining two parcels (I and II), Joaquin refused, prompting the judicial action.
Joaquin claimed absolute ownership over parcels III and IV, presenting deeds of sale allegedly executed by Eustaquia in 1946. He asserted continuous adverse possession since then. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled for the respondents, declaring the deeds void for lack of consideration and vitiated consent, noting Eustaquia was 91 and Joaquin had no known income at the time. The court upheld the 1966 oral partition, evidenced by long-term possession and Joaquin’s acquiescence. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether Joaquin acquired sole ownership via the 1946 deeds of sale; (2) whether a co-ownership existed among the heirs; and (3) whether the action for partition was barred by prescription or laches.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ rulings. On the first issue, the Court upheld the finding that the deeds of sale were void. The factual determinations of the trial court, affirmed by the CA, were conclusive. The evidence showed the stated consideration was fictitious, and Eustaquia’s consent was vitiated due to her advanced age and condition. The deeds’ authenticity was further suspect as they surfaced only 43 years after execution.
On the second issue, the Court confirmed the existence of co-ownership. The oral partition in 1966 was valid and proven by the parties’ subsequent conduct over 23 years. Joaquin’s administration of the shares for the minor heirs and the respondents’ occupation of specific portions constituted clear recognition of the co-ownership and the partition agreement.
On the third issue, the action was not barred by prescription or laches. Prescription does not run against a co-owner unless there is a clear repudiation of the co-ownership communicated to the other heirs. The Court found no such repudiation by Joaquin; his mere claim of ownership via void deeds and refusal to partition did not constitute the required unequivocal act of repudiation. Therefore, the respondents’ right to demand partition remained imprescriptible. The award of attorney’s fees was also sustained as justified.