G.R. No. L-59974. March 9, 1987
TEODORA, MARTA, JOSE, SIXTO, RICARDO, ROBERTO, PILAR, VIRGILIO, all surnamed MARIANO and AURORA EUGENIO, Petitioners, vs. THE HON. JUDGE JESUS R. DE VEGA, PRESIDING JUDGE, COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF BULACAN, BRANCH II, PILAR, REGINA, FELISA and DOMINADOR all surnamed PANGANIBAN, Respondents.

FACTS

The case involves the partition of 29 parcels of unregistered land, the conjugal property of spouses Urbano Panganiban and Roberta Espino. Upon Roberta’s death in 1903, her heirs were her husband Urbano and their two daughters, Mercedes and Gaudencia. Both daughters predeceased Urbano, who later married Atanacia Agustin and had children with her (the private respondents). Urbano died in 1952. The petitioners are the grandchildren and heirs of the predeceased daughter Gaudencia. Since Urbano’s death, the private respondents (his children from the second marriage) took exclusive possession of all the properties and appropriated their fruits to the petitioners’ exclusion.
In 1981, nearly 29 years after Urbano’s death, petitioners filed an action for partition and delivery of possession of their hereditary shares. The trial court dismissed the complaint on grounds of prescription. It ruled that the action, allegedly based on a constructive trust, prescribed in ten years pursuant to prevailing jurisprudence, thereby reversing the old rule on imprescriptibility. Petitioners moved for reconsideration, arguing that the cited jurisprudence involved registered lands, the prescriptive period never commenced due to lack of repudiation, and an action for partition among co-heirs does not prescribe.

ISSUE

Whether the petitioners’ action for partition of the unregistered lands had prescribed.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s order and held that the action had not prescribed. The legal logic centers on the correct characterization of the parties’ relationship. The Court found the trial court’s reliance on the rules of constructive trust and a ten-year prescriptive period to be erroneous. The proper framework is that of co-ownership, as both petitioners and private respondents inherited the disputed properties from a common ancestor, Urbano Panganiban.
Under the Civil Code, specifically Article 494, no prescription shall run in favor of one co-owner or co-heir against the others so long as the co-ownership is recognized, expressly or impliedly. For prescription to commence, there must be a clear repudiation of the co-ownership communicated to the other co-owners. The Court ruled that the private respondents’ mere exclusive possession and appropriation of fruits, or the recording of the properties in their names for tax assessment purposes, did not constitute the clear and effective repudiation required by law. Possession by a co-owner is presumed to be on behalf of all co-owners, not in an adverse capacity. Since no such repudiation was shown, the prescriptive period never began to run against the petitioners. Consequently, their action for partition, which is inherently imprescriptible among co-heirs while the co-ownership subsists, was timely filed. The case was remanded to the lower court for adjudication on the merits.