G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988
RUSTICO ADILLE, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EMETERIA ASEJO, TEODORICA ASEJO, DOMINGO ASEJO, JOSEFA ASEJO and SANTIAGO ASEJO, respondents.

FACTS

The land in question originally belonged to Felisa Alzul. She had a son, petitioner Rustico Adille, from her first marriage to Bernabe Adille. From her second marriage to Procopio Asejo, she had children who are the private respondents. In 1939, Felisa sold the land with a right to repurchase within three years. She died in 1942 without redeeming it. During the redemption period, Rustico Adille alone repurchased the entire property. Subsequently, he executed an affidavit of extrajudicial partition representing himself as the sole heir, leading to the cancellation of the original certificate of title and the issuance of a new one solely in his name in 1955.
The private respondents, his half-siblings, later filed an action for partition and accounting, claiming Rustico held the property in trust for them as co-owners. The trial court ruled in favor of Rustico, declaring him the absolute owner and ordering one of the respondents in possession to vacate. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, prompting Rustico to elevate the case to the Supreme Court via certiorari.

ISSUE

May a co-owner, by redeeming the entire property sold with a right to repurchase and subsequently registering it in his name alone, acquire exclusive ownership to the exclusion of his co-heirs?

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The act of redemption by one co-heir inures to the benefit of all co-owners. When Rustico redeemed the property, he did so for the benefit of the co-ownership, and his payment constituted a necessary expense for its preservation. The other co-owners retain their respective shares but are liable to reimburse him for their proportionate shares of the redemption price. His subsequent registration of the property in his name alone did not terminate the co-ownership. Registration is not a mode of acquiring ownership but merely a means of confirming existing title. Since he secured the title by falsely representing himself as the sole heir, he is considered by operation of law a trustee of an implied trust under Article 1456 of the Civil Code, holding the property for the benefit of his co-heirs. The Court also held that the action had not prescribed, as the prescriptive period for an implied trust based on fraud runs from the discovery of the fraud, which the appellate court found occurred only during the litigation. Furthermore, prescription was not pleaded as a defense. Therefore, the property remains under co-ownership and is subject to partition.