G.R. No. 161720 November 22, 2005
HEIRS OF FLORES RESTAR, Petitioners, vs. HEIRS OF DOLORES R. CICHON, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

Emilio Restar died intestate in 1935, leaving eight children as compulsory heirs. Among his properties was Lot 3177. In 1960, his eldest child, Flores Restar, caused the cancellation of the tax declaration in Emilio’s name and secured a new one in his own name. Flores died in 1989. In 1998, his siblings and their heirs discovered the change in tax declaration and filed a complaint for partition, declaration of nullity of documents, and ownership against Flores’s heirs. The plaintiffs alleged they received shares of the lot’s produce until 1991 and had only allowed Flores’s widow to hold the property for her children’s education, with a promise of later partition.
The defendants, Flores’s heirs, claimed ownership through acquisitive prescription, asserting open, continuous, and exclusive possession for over 30 years. They denied any sharing of produce or any agreement with the co-heirs. The Regional Trial Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that Flores and his heirs had acquired the lot by extraordinary prescription through acts of repudiation of the co-ownership.

ISSUE

Whether Flores Restar and his heirs acquired exclusive ownership of Lot 3177 by prescription, thereby terminating the co-ownership among Emilio Restar’s heirs.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision, holding that Flores and his heirs acquired the property by extraordinary prescription. The Court emphasized that a co-owner can acquire exclusive ownership by repudiating the co-ownership, provided the act of repudiation is clear, unequivocal, and made known to the other co-owners. Here, Flores’s act in 1960 of cancelling the original tax declaration and securing a new one solely in his name constituted a clear and public repudiation of the co-ownership. This act was an assertion of adverse, exclusive ownership, which was not rebutted by the other heirs.
The Court found that the respondents failed to immediately take legal action to protect their rights. Their justification for inaction—forbearance due to a familial request—was insufficient to explain their decades-long delay, especially after the alleged purpose (funding education) had purportedly ended by 1977. The continuous, open, and adverse possession by Flores and his heirs for over 38 years, coupled with the clear act of repudiation in 1960, perfected their title through extraordinary prescription under the Civil Code. The law favors the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.