G.R. No. 208776 , November 03, 2020
THE HEIRS OF LOPE MALAQUE, NAMELY: LOTY LATONIO MALAQUE, ET AL., PETITIONERS, VS. HEIRS OF SALOMON MALAQUE, NAMELY: SABINA MALAQUE PANO, MARCELINA MALAQUE SAQUIN, CATALINA MALAQUE PEPITO, AGRIPINO MALAQUE, AND HILARIO MALAQUE, RESPONDENTS.

FACTS

This case originated from a Complaint for partition, annulment of quitclaim and adjudication, accounting of proceeds, with prayer for writ of preliminary injunction and damages filed by the respondents (Heirs of Salomon Malaque) against the petitioners (Heirs of Lope Malaque) before the RTC of Oroquieta City.
Salomon Malaque owned a parcel of land known as Lot No. 3974. Upon the deaths of Salomon and his wife Marciana, their son Lope occupied and cultivated the property. After Lope’s death, his heirs (petitioners) continued possession without giving shares to the other heirs (respondents). The respondents later discovered that Tax Declaration No. 3619 covering the lot had been issued in Lope’s name. When they confronted Lope’s widow, Loty, about partitioning the property, she refused and claimed ownership by virtue of a Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication dated December 31, 1976, allegedly signed by three of the respondents (Sabina, Catalina, and Hilario), who represented themselves as the only surviving heirs of Salomon and waived their rights to the lot in favor of Lope and Loty. The respondents denied executing this Deed, claiming their signatures were forged, and filed suit. They sought to partition the remaining area of the lot (8,032 sq. m.), declare the Quitclaim void, and account for proceeds.
Petitioners countered that the Quitclaim, as a public document, was presumed valid. They also presented an earlier, unnotarized Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights dated March 2, 1970, signed by four of the heirs, purportedly selling the property to Lope for ₱700.00.
During trial, respondent Sabina testified they trusted their brother Lope, which was why they did not complain earlier, and were prompted to sue upon learning the land was mortgaged. Loty testified she paid the heirs for the land. On rebuttal, respondents Catalina and Hilario denied executing the Quitclaim, though Catalina said the signature resembled hers from when she was single. Hilario stated he thumbmarked a document believing it was to prevent confiscation. Agripino admitted signing the Deed of Sale but understood it as a mortgage, not a sale.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) the validity of the Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication and the Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights; and (2) whether the respondents’ action for partition had prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court DENIED the petition and AFFIRMED the assailed Court of Appeals Decision and Resolution.
1. On Prescription: The Court held that the action for partition had not prescribed. The property, covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 20658 issued in the name of the “Heirs of Salomon Malague,” was under co-ownership. A co-owner cannot acquire exclusive ownership by prescription against other co-owners unless there has been a clear, express, and positive repudiation of the co-ownership communicated to the others. Here, Lope and his heirs (petitioners) never made such a repudiation. Their possession was merely tolerated, and the co-ownership was impliedly recognized. Thus, Lope held the respondents’ shares under an implied trust, and the right to demand partition is imprescriptible.
2. On the Validity of the Documents:
* Deed of Absolute Sale of Rights (1970): The Court affirmed its nullity. It was an unnotarized private document. Not all co-owners signed it, and those who did testified they did not understand its import (believing it was a mortgage or a document to prevent confiscation). The RTC found the documents fictitious and obtained by fraud and misrepresentation.
Deed of Quitclaim and Adjudication (1976): The Court affirmed its nullity ab initio*. The document lacked any stated consideration for the relinquishment of shares, making it essentially a donation. As a donation of real property, it must comply with Article 749 of the Civil Code, requiring a public document and acceptance by the donee. The Deed, while notarized, contained no categorical acceptance by the donee, Lope. Furthermore, the purported donors (respondents) denied its execution, claiming forgery. The presumption of due execution for a notarized document was sufficiently rebutted by their positive and categorical denials under oath.
The Supreme Court sustained the orders for the partition of the 8,032-square-meter lot among the heirs of Salomon Malaque, for an accounting of the proceeds from the land, and the award of attorney’s fees and costs.