GR 28394; (October, 1928) (CRITIQUE)
__________________________________________________________________
THE AI-ASSISTED CRITIQUE
The court correctly rejected the appellant’s claim of acquisitive prescription, as his possession, while public and continuous, was not adverse in the requisite manner. The appellant purchased the land from only some of the co-heirs, and his subsequent actions—including his demand for a bond to secure against claims from other heirs and the heirs’ own motion claiming a share of the unpaid purchase price—demonstrate he was aware his vendors’ title was not exclusive. This knowledge prevents his possession from being considered in good faith or under a claim of exclusive ownership, which is essential for prescription to run against the other co-owners. His possession was therefore that of a co-owner in bad faith, which does not ripen into ownership through mere passage of time against other co-owners who have not repudiated the co-ownership.

Regarding the Torrens title, the court properly held it was not a bar to the partition action. The appellant’s certificate was issued without the notation of the pending litigation (lis pendens) filed in 1925, but the core issue is that registration under the Torrens System does not cure a void or defective title. The appellant derived his title from a sale by heirs who collectively owned only a portion of the property; he stepped into their shoes as a co-owner, not as a sole owner. The principle of indefeasibility of title protects a registered owner from claims, but it does not protect one who obtained registration through a transaction that did not convey full ownership. The action for partition is precisely the remedy to determine and segregate the respective shares, and it does not directly challenge the decree of registration but seeks its correction to reflect the true state of co-ownership.

The judgment ordering an accounting of profits is a logical application of the law on co-ownership. As a co-owner in bad faith—having taken possession of the whole property knowing other co-heirs existed—the appellant is obligated under the Civil Code to account for the fruits received from the portions not belonging to his grantors. The court’s directive to collate the net profits and divide them according to the shares determined in partition ensures that the appellant does not unjustly enrich himself at the expense of the other co-owners. This remedy upholds the equitable principle that a co-owner in possession cannot claim ownership over the whole by mere occupation and must render to the others their rightful share of the benefits.