GR L 51914; (June, 1990) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-51914. June 6, 1990.
MARIA BICARME assisted by her husband JOSE BALUBAR, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS and CRISTINA BICARME, respondents.
FACTS
Spouses Juan Bicarme and Florencia Bidaya owned two parcels of land. Upon their deaths, they were survived by their children Victorina and Maria Bicarme. Victorina later died, leaving her only daughter, Cristina Bicarme. Cristina claimed that as Victorina’s heir, she became a co-owner with her aunt Maria of the subject properties. She filed an action for partition after Maria refused to share the yearly produce.
Maria Bicarme resisted the action, asserting absolute ownership. She claimed she acquired the lands by purchase from other individuals in 1925 and 1926 and had possessed them openly and adversely. She also argued that Cristina never contributed to tax payments and was presumed dead.
ISSUE
Whether petitioner Maria Bicarme had acquired exclusive ownership of the properties by prescription, thereby negating private respondent Cristina Bicarme’s right to demand partition.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ ruling, with modification as to attorney’s fees. The Court held that no prescription had set in to bar Cristina’s action for partition. Maria failed to prove acquisitive prescription. Her possession, though long, was not shown to be in the concept of an exclusive owner adverse to her co-heir. The deeds of sale Maria executed contained a provision stating she was the “sole and absolute owner” having acquired the land “by inheritance from my late father.” This was deemed a recognition of the property’s hereditary origin and, consequently, of Cristina’s co-ownership rights. Mere receipt of fruits, payment of taxes, and silent possession do not constitute clear and conclusive evidence of repudiation of the co-ownership required to start the prescriptive period.
Since Maria’s possession was not adverse, the imprescriptibility of an action for partition applies. Cristina’s right to seek division of the estate remained. However, the award of attorney’s fees was deleted for lack of factual and legal justification in the complaint and the decision’s body.