Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila
FIRST DIVISION
G.R. No. L-46296 September 24, 1991
EPITACIO DELIMA, PACLANO DELIMA, IDEL DELIMA, !IRGILIO DELIMA,
GALILEO DELIMA, "R., #I#IANO #ACUS, OLIMPIO #ACUS $%& PURIICACION
#ACUS, petitioners,
vs.
'ON. COURT O APPEALS, GALILEO DELIMA (&e)e$*e&+, *,b*t-t,te& b. /-*
0e1$0 /e-r*, %$me0.2 LA!IANA !DA. DE DELIMA, LIL3 D. ARIAS, 'ELEN
NIADAS, ANTONIO DELIMA, DIONISIO DELIMA, IRENEA DELIMA, ESTER
DELIMA AND EL3 DELIMA, respondents.
Gabriel J. Canete for petitioners.
Emilio Lumontad, Jr. for private respondents.

MEDIALDEA, J.:p
This is a petition for revie on certiorari of the decision of the !ourt of "ppeals
reversin# the trial court$s %ud#&ent hich declared as null and void the certificate of
title in the na&e of respondents$ predecessor and hich ordered the partition of the
disputed lot a&on# the parties as co'oners.
The antecedent facts of the case as found both b( the respondent appellate court and
b( the trial court are as follos)
Durin# his lifeti&e, *ino Deli&a ac+uired *ot No. ,,-. of the Talisa('Min#lanilla Friar
*ands /state in !ebu b( sale on install&ents fro& the #overn&ent. *ino Deli&a later
died in 0120 leavin# as his onl( heirs three brothers and a sister na&el() /ulalio
Deli&a, 3uanita Deli&a, 4alileo Deli&a and Vicente Deli&a. "fter his death, T!T No.
2,55 of the propert( in +uestion as issued on "u#ust 6, 01-6 in the na&e of the
*e#al 7eirs of *ino Deli&a, deceased, represented b( 4alileo Deli&a.
On Septe&ber 22, 01-6, 4alileo Deli&a, no substituted b( respondents, e8ecuted an
affidavit of 9/8tra'%udicial Declaration of 7eirs.9 :ased on this affidavit, T!T No. 2,55
as cancelled and T!T No. 6;;1 as issued on Februar( 5,01-5 in the na&e of
4alileo Deli&a alone to the e8clusion of the other heirs.
4alileo Deli&a declared the lot in his na&e for ta8ation purposes and paid the ta8es
thereon fro& 01-5 to 01<-.
On Februar( 21, 01<., petitioners, ho are the survivin# heirs of /ulalio and 3uanita
Deli&a, filed ith the !ourt of First Instance of !ebu =no Re#ional Trial !ourt> an
action for reconve(ance and?or partition of propert( and for the annul&ent of T!T No.
6;;1 ith da&a#es a#ainst their uncles 4alileo Deli&a and Vicente Deli&a,. Vicente
Deli&a as %oined as part( defendant b( the petitioners for his refusal to %oin the latter
in their action.
On 3anuar( 0<, 01,;, the trial court rendered a decision in favor of petitioners, the
dispositive portion of hich states)
IN VI/@ OF T7/ FOR/4OIN4 !ONSID/R"TIONS, the folloin#
are the declared oners of *ot No. ,,-. of the Talisa('Min#lanilla
Friar *ands /state presentl( covered b( transfer !ertificate of Title
No. 6;;1, each sharin# a pro'indiviso share of one'fourthA
0> Vicente Deli&a =one'fourth>
2> 7eirs of 3uanita Deli&a, na&el() :ibiano :acus, Oli&pio :acus
and Purificacion :acus =on'fourth>A
6> 7eirs of /ulalio Deli&a, na&el( /pitacio, Pa#ano, Fidel, Vir#ilio
and 4alileo 3r., all surna&ed Deli&a =one'fourth>A and
5> The 7eirs of 4alileo Deli&a, na&el( Flaviana Vda. de Deli&a, *il(
D. "rias, 7elen Niadas and Dionisio, "ntonio, /otu Irenea, and Fel(,
all surna&ed Deli&a =one'fourth>.
Transfer !ertificate of Title No. 6;;1 is declared null and void and
the Re#ister of Deeds of !ebu is ordered to cancel the sa&e and
issue in lieu thereof another title ith the above heirs as pro'indiviso
oners.
"fter the pa(&ent of ta8es paid b( 4alileo Deli&a since 01-., the
heirs of 4alileo Deli&a are ordered to turn a over to the other heirs
their respective shares of the fruits of the lot in +uestion co&puted at
P0,;.;; per (ear up to the present ti&e ith le#al =interest>.
@ithin si8t( =<;> da(s fro& receipt of this decision the parties are
ordered to petition the lot in +uestion and the defendants are
directed to i&&ediatel( turn over possession of the shares here
aarded to the respective heirs.
Defendants are conde&ned to pa( the costs of the suit.
1
The counterclai& is dis&issed.
SO ORD/R/D. =pp. -5'--, Rollo>
Not satisfied ith the decision, respondents appealed to the !ourt of "ppeals. On Ma(
01, 01,,, respondent appellate court reversed the trial court$s decision and upheld the
clai& of 4alileo Deli&a that all the other brothers and sister of *ino Deli&a, na&el(
/ulalio, 3uanita and Vicente, had alread( relin+uished and aived their ri#hts to the
propert( in his favor, considerin# that he =4alileo Deli&a> alone paid the re&ainin#
balance of the purchase price of the lot and the realt( ta8es thereon =p. 2<, Rollo>.
7ence, this petition as filed ith the petitioners alle#in# that the !ourt of "ppeals
erred)
0> In not holdin# that the ri#ht of a co'heir to de&and partition of
inheritance is i&prescriptible. If it does, the defenses of prescription
and laches have alread( been aived.
2> In disre#ardin# the evidence of the petitioners.=p.06, Rollo>
The issue to be resolved in the instant case is hether or not petitioners$ action for
partition is alread( barred b( the statutor( period provided b( la hich shall enable
4alileo Deli&a to perfect his clai& of onership b( ac+uisitive prescription to the
e8clusion of petitioners fro& their shares in the disputed propert(. "rticle 515 of the
!ivil !ode e8pressl( provides)
"rt. 515. No co'oner shall be obli#ed to re&ain in the co'
onership. /ach co'oner &a( de&and at an( ti&e the partition of
the thin# oned in co&&on, insofar as his share is concerned.
Nevertheless, an a#ree&ent to Beep the thin# undivided for a certain
period of ti&e, not e8ceedin# ten (ears, shall be valid. This ter& &a(
be e8tended b( a ne a#ree&ent.
" donor or testator &a( prohibit partition for a period hich shall not
e8ceed tent( (ears.
Neither shall there be an( partition hen it is prohibited b( la.
No prescription shall run in favor of a co'oner or co'heir a#ainst his
co'oners or co'heirs so lon# as he e8pressl( or i&pliedl(
reco#niCes the co'onership.
"s a rule, possession b( a co'oner ill not be presu&ed to be adverse to the others,
but ill be held to benefit all. It is understood that the co'oner or co'heir ho is in
possession of an inheritance pro'indiviso for hi&self and in representation of his co'
oners or co'heirs, if, as such oner, he ad&inisters or taBes care of the rest thereof
ith the obli#ation of deliverin# it to his co'oners or co'heirs, is under the sa&e
situation as a depositor(, a lessee or a trustee =:ar#a(o v. !a&u&ot, 5; Phil, .-,A
Se#ura v. Se#ura, No. *'2162;, Septe&ber 01, 01.., 0<- S!R" 6<.>. Thus, an action
to co&pel partition &a( be filed at an( ti&e b( an( of the co'oners a#ainst the actual
possessor. In other ords, no prescription shall run in favor of a co'oner a#ainst his
co'oners or co'heirs so lon# as he e8pressl( or i&pliedl( reco#niCes the co'
onership =Del :lanco v. Inter&ediate "ppellate !ourt, No. ,2<15, Dece&ber 0, 01.,,
0-< S!R" -->.
7oever, fro& the &o&ent one of the co'oners clai&s that he is the absolute and
e8clusive oner of the properties and denies the others an( share therein, the
+uestion involved is no lon#er one of partition but of onership =De !astro v. /charri,
2; Phil. 26A :ar#a(o v. !a&u&ot, supraA De los Santos v. Santa Teresa, 55 Phil. .00>.
In such case, the i&prescriptibilit( of the action for partition can no lon#er be invoBed
or applied hen one of the co'oners has adversel( possessed the propert( as
e8clusive oner for a period sufficient to vest onership b( prescription.
It is settled that possession b( a co'oner or co'heir is that of a trustee. In order that
such possession is considered adverse to the cestui que trust a&ountin# to a
repudiation of the co'onership, the folloin# ele&ents &ust concur) 0> that the
trustee has perfor&ed une+uivocal acts a&ountin# to an ouster of the cestui que trustA
2> that such positive acts of repudiation had been &ade Bnon to the cestui +ue trustA
and 6> that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive =ValdeC v. Olor#a, No.
*'22-,0, Ma( 2-, 01,6, -0 S!R" ,0A Pan#an v. !ourt of "ppeals, No. *'61211,
October 0., 01.., 0<< S!R" 6,->.
@e have held that hen a co'oner of the propert( in +uestion e8ecuted a deed of
partition and on the stren#th thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in the na&e of
their predecessor and the issuance of a ne one herein he appears as the ne
oner of the propert(, thereb( in effect den(in# or repudiatin# the onership of the
other co'oners over their shares, the statute of li&itations started to run for the
purposes of the action instituted b( the latter seeBin# a declaration of the e8istence of
the co'onership and of their ri#hts thereunder =!astillo v. !ourt of "ppeals, No. *'
0.;5<, March 60, 01<5, 0; S!R" -51>. Since an action for reconve(ance of land
based on i&plied or constructive trust prescribes after ten =0;> (ears, it is fro& the date
of the issuance of such title that the effective assertion of adverse title for purposes of
the statute of li&itations is counted =3ara&il v. !ourt of "ppeals, No. *'60.-., "u#ust
60, 01,,, ,. S!R" 52;>.
/vidence shos that T!T No. 2,55 in the na&e of the le#al heirs of *ino Deli&a,
represented b( 4alileo Deli&a, as cancelled b( virtue of an affidavit e8ecuted b(
4alileo Deli&a and that on Februar( 5, 01-5, 4alileo Deli&a obtained the issuance of
a ne title in Ms na&e nu&bered T!T No. 6;;1 to the e8clusion of his co'heirs. The
issuance of this ne title constituted an open and clear repudiation of the trust or co'
onership, and the lapse of ten =0;> (ears of adverse possession b( 4alileo Deli&a
fro& Februar( 5, 01-5 as sufficient to vest title in hi& b( prescription. "s the
2
certificate of title as notice to the hole orld of his e8clusive title to the land, such
re%ection as bindin# on the other heirs and started as a#ainst the& the period of
prescription. 7ence, hen petitioners filed their action for reconve(ance and?or to
co&pel partition on Februar( 21, 01<., such action as alread( barred b( prescription.
@hatever clai&s the other co'heirs could have validl( asserted before can no lon#er
be invoBed b( the& at this ti&e.
"!!ORDIN4*D, the petition is hereb( D/NI/D and the assailed decision of the !ourt
of "ppeals dated Ma( 01, 01,, is "FFIRM/D.
SO ORD/R/D.
3