G.R. No. 242127 , September 15, 2021
Evangeline Engao Asis, Heirs of Felicitation Engao-Bautista, namely: Fernando B. Bautista, Agueda Fe B. Barredo, Fernando E. Bautista, Jr., and Amado Rex E. Bautista, Heirs of Erma Engao Trocino, namely: Felipe E. Trocino and Pamela T. Dela Cruz, and Cesar A. Engao, Petitioners, vs. Heirs of Rosello Calignawan, namely: Erlinda A. Calignawan, Vincent A. Calignawan, Lindro A. Calignawan, Sherman A. Calignawan, Marvi A. Calignawan, Ian Loyd A. Calignawan, Gary Martin A. Calignawan, and Mary Rose A. Calignawan, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over Lot Nos. 581 and 2064 in Tacloban City, originally registered under Romana Engao and her daughter Angeles Engao-Calignawan. The petitioners are the heirs of Felipe Engao (son of Romana and brother of Angeles). The respondents are the heirs of Rosello Calignawan, who claimed to be the son of Angeles. After Romana’s death in 1975, Rosello alleged that Angeles executed a Deed of Donation in his favor on May 25, 1984. In 1988, Rosello discovered that the original titles had been cancelled and new ones issued in the names of the petitioners and himself, based on a Deed of Adjudication and a Deed of Consolidation dated December 2, 1982. Rosello filed a complaint, claiming his signature on these 1982 documents was forged and that Angeles and Felipe were still alive at the time of execution, making the documents void. The petitioners argued that Rosello was not a legitimate child of Angeles but was merely taken into her household, and that the Deed of Donation was spurious. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled in favor of the petitioners, declaring Rosello not a son and heir of Angeles, invalidating the Deed of Donation, and nullifying the 1982 Deed of Adjudication and Deed of Consolidation as they pertained to a future inheritance. The Court of Appeals (CA) reversed the RTC, upholding the validity of the 1982 documents and the subsequent Extrajudicial Settlement of 1985, and remanded the case for partition. The petitioners elevated the case to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the Deed of Adjudication and Deed of Consolidation dated December 2, 1982, which partitioned the subject properties among the petitioners and Rosello, are valid despite being executed while the alleged owners (Angeles and Felipe) were still alive.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Court held that the 1982 Deed of Adjudication and Deed of Consolidation were valid. It ruled that these documents were not contracts upon a future inheritance prohibited under Article 1347 of the Civil Code, but were acts of repudiation of the co-ownership over the properties inherited from Romana Engao. By executing these documents, the parties (the petitioners and Rosello) effectively repudiated the co-ownership and agreed to partition the properties among themselves. The Court emphasized that the action for partition had already prescribed, as more than 30 years had passed since Romana’s death in 1975 without any action for partition being filed by the heirs. The imprescriptibility of the co-ownership only lasts until a co-owner explicitly repudiates it, and such repudiation was made through the 1982 documents. The Court also noted that the parties had acted upon these documents for years, obtaining new titles and paying taxes. Therefore, the CA correctly ordered the remand of the case to the trial court to effect the partition of the properties in accordance with the 1982 agreements.