G.R. No. L-45615; May 25, 1939
TEOFILO SINCO, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. SILVESTRA TEVES and BRUNO VICENTE, defendants-appellees.

FACTS

Rafael Sinco y Librado died in 1892. In the same year, while still living, he made a partition of his properties among his heirs with their concurrence, as evidenced by a document (Exhibit 3). The lands known as “Odiongan” and “Talaptap” were allotted to his grandchildren Antonio Sinco, Pantaleon Sinco, and Cecilio Sinco (children of his daughter Regina). The heirs thereafter disposed of their respective shares. Around 1910, Antonio and Pantaleon Sinco, through their brother Cecilio, conveyed their shares of these lands to the defendants. This conveyance was later ratified by a public document in 1915. The defendants and their predecessors-in-interest have been in possession of the lands as owners since the 1892 partition. The defendants also obtained certificates of title to the lands in the corresponding cadastral case without any opposition from the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, who are descendants of Rafael’s other children, filed an action for recovery of possession and a share of the products, alleging the properties were still held pro indiviso by all heirs and that the defendants held them without just title.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs have a right to recover the lands from the defendants, considering the prior partition and the defendants’ long-term possession.

RULING

No. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment absolving the defendants from the complaint. The properties left by Rafael Sinco were not held pro indiviso as they had been validly partitioned among the heirs in 1892. The heirs who received the subject lands subsequently conveyed them to the defendants. The defendants and their predecessors have been in open, continuous, and exclusive possession of the lands as owners for more than twenty years, thereby acquiring ownership by prescription. The defendants’ acts did not constitute a recognition of a co-ownership. The fact that the defendants obtained Torrens titles to the lands without opposition from the plaintiffs further strengthened their claim. The appeal was dismissed with costs against the appellants.