G.R. No. 25279, August 19, 1926
DOLORES PRADES, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. HILARIO TECSON, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Felix Prades acquired three parcels of land during his marriage to his first wife, Rufina Velazquez. Upon Rufina’s death, the properties pertained to their conjugal partnership. Felix later remarried and left the properties in the possession of his children from his first marriage, including the plaintiffs (Dolores, Ines, Candida, and Tomas Prades) and their brother Gaspar. For about 25 years, the children possessed and managed the lands, with Felix exercising no control. In 1920, Felix and Gaspar executed a deed of sale with pacto de retro (Exhibit 1) over all three parcels in favor of Hilario Tecson. Upon failure to redeem, Tecson consolidated ownership and sought possession. The plaintiffs refused to surrender one parcel, claiming they owned an undivided share inherited from their mother. Tecson argued that Felix, as surviving spouse, had the power to alienate the entire conjugal property.

ISSUE

Did Felix Prades, as the surviving spouse, retain the exclusive power to alienate the conjugal properties after a long period of possession and management by his children, thereby vesting full ownership in Tecson?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s decision. While a surviving spouse generally has the power to administer and alienate conjugal property prior to liquidation (as held in *Nable Jose v. Nable Jose* and *Manuel and Laxamana v. Losano*), this power can be waived or abdicated. Here, Felix Prades had left the properties in the exclusive possession and control of his children for about 25 years, effectively establishing a conventional partnership or co-ownership with them in place of his former administrative authority. This open and notorious possession put third parties, including Tecson, on notice of the changed status of the property. Consequently, the deed (Exhibit 1) conveyed only the shares of Felix and Gaspar, not the shares of the other children inherited from their mother. The plaintiffs were declared co-owners of an undivided four-tenths interest in two of the parcels (Lots 1 and 2), and the case was remanded for partition. The judgment regarding Lot 3 was affirmed, as the plaintiffs’ exclusive possession of it was not clearly established. The parties were ordered to account to each other for their respective shares of the produce from the lands during the period of detention.