G.R. No. 26495 , March 10, 1927
SEVERINO CASAÑAS, as administratrix of the estate of Maria Quintero, deceased, plaintiff-appellant, vs. TELESFORA ROSELLO, as administratrix of the estate of Cornelio Belarmino, deceased, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

Maria Quintero died in 1897/1898. During her lifetime, she was a tenant (not an owner) of several lots belonging to the Hacienda de los Frailes. She owned a house and a *camarin* (warehouse) on one of these lots (Lot No. 11). By her 1892 will, she left these structures to Severina Casañas. After Maria’s death, her heir Matias Belarmino administered the property, succeeded later by Cornelio Belarmino. Petrona Belarmino (mother of Severina) renounced her rights to the estate. Cornelio Belarmino continued in possession of the lots and structures. After the government purchased the hacienda under Act No. 1120, Cornelio Belarmino bought the lots from the government, becoming their absolute owner. He possessed them openly and adversely until his death in 1921, after which his wife, Telesfora Rosello, continued possession. Cornelio had previously ceded part of the *camarin* and sold one lot to third parties. Severino Casañas, as administrator of Maria Quintero’s estate, filed an action to recover the remaining lots and structures from Telesfora Rosello. The trial court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the action had prescribed.

ISSUE

Whether the action for recovery of the properties filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the defendant-appellee has prescribed.

RULING

Yes, the action has prescribed. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The Court held that while the defense of prescription is generally not available between co-heirs, an exception applies when one heir possesses the property openly, adversely, and exclusively against his co-heirs for a long period of time. In this case, Cornelio Belarmino’s possession was of such character.

Crucially, Maria Quintero was never the owner of the lots, only a tenant. Her heirs did not take steps to continue her tenancy rights. Cornelio Belarmino later acquired absolute ownership of the lots through a purchase from the government, a title independent of and adverse to any claim from his co-heirs. His possession, coupled with this exclusive title acquired by purchase, was openly hostile and adverse for a period sufficient to acquire ownership by prescription.

Regarding the house and *camarin*, the Court found that Maria Quintero’s will and the parties’ agreements during trial sufficiently disposed of the plaintiff’s claim.

Therefore, the defense of prescription (and ownership) was properly invoked and sustained. The judgment absolving the defendant was affirmed.