GR 57062; (January, 1992) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-57062 January 24, 1992
MARIA DEL ROSARIO MARIATEGUI, ET AL., petitioners, vs. HON. COURT OF APPEALS, JACINTO MARIATEGUI, JULIAN MARIATEGUI and PAULINA MARIATEGUI, respondents.
FACTS
Lupo Mariategui died intestate in 1953, leaving properties acquired before any marriage. He had children from three marriages. In 1967, his descendants from his first and second marriages executed an extrajudicial partition over Lot No. 163, excluding the children from the third marriage, Jacinto, Julian, and Paulina. The lot was subsequently registered and titles issued solely to the partitioning heirs.
In 1973, Jacinto, Julian, and Paulina filed a complaint for partition and annulment of the extrajudicial partition, claiming they were deprived of their lawful shares. The defendants (petitioners) moved to dismiss, arguing the action was one for recognition of natural children and was barred by prescription. The trial court initially denied the motion but later dismissed the complaint, finding the plaintiffs failed to prove their status as legitimate children entitled to inherit.
ISSUE
Whether the action for partition filed by the excluded co-heirs is barred by prescription.
RULING
No, the action is not barred by prescription. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision. The core legal principle is that prescription for the partition of an estate held in co-ownership only begins to run from the time a co-ownership is repudiated, and such repudiation is clearly communicated to the other co-owners. Mere registration of property under the Torrens system in the names of some heirs does not, by itself, constitute effective repudiation if done fraudulently.
The Court found that the petitioners, with full knowledge of their relationship to the respondents as co-heirs, fraudulently excluded them from the extrajudicial partition and secured titles in their own names. This act was a clear defraudation. Jacinto Mariategui had been inquiring about their share since 1962 and was given assurances, and he even built a house on the lot in 1969 without objection. The registration in 1971 was therefore not a valid repudiation made known to the respondents. Prescription commenced only when the respondents discovered the fraud. Their filing of the action in 1973, shortly after this discovery, was well within the prescriptive period. The Torrens title cannot be used as a shield for fraud.