Delima vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. 46296.
September 24, 1991
DOCTRINE/ RECIT READY
The Supreme Court upholds Galileo Delima's claim of exclusive ownership through
adverse possession, denying the petitioners' action for reconveyance and partition.
Thus, an action to compel partition may be filed at any time by any of the co-owners
against the actual possessor. In other words, no prescription shall run in favor of a co-
owner against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes
the co-ownership (Del Blanco v. Intermediate Appellate Court).
FACTS
The case of "Delima v. Court of Appeals" revolves around the ownership and partition of
Lot No. 7758 of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar Lands Estate in Cebu.
The original owner, Lino Delima, acquired the lot through an installment purchase from the
government. Upon his death in 1921, his siblings Eulalio, Juanita, Galileo, and Vicente
Delima inherited the property. On August 3, 1953, Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No.
2744 was issued in the name of "The Legal Heirs of Lino Delima, deceased, represented
by Galileo Delima."
Subsequently, on September 22, 1953, Galileo executed an affidavit of "Extra-judicial
Declaration of Heirs," which led to the cancellation of TCT No. 2744 and the issuance of
TCT No. 3009 solely in Galileo's name on February 4, 1954.
Galileo declared the lot for taxation purposes and paid the taxes from 1954 to 1965. On
February 29, 1968, the petitioners, who are the surviving heirs of Eulalio and Juanita
Delima, filed an action for reconveyance and/or partition of the property and annulment of
TCT No. 3009 with damages against Galileo and Vicente Delima.
The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners on January 16, 1970, declaring the heirs as
pro-indiviso owners and nullifying TCT No. 3009.
However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision on May 19, 1977, upholding Galileo's
claim of exclusive ownership based on adverse possession. The petitioners then brought
the case to the Supreme Court.
ISSUE/S
Whether the petitioners' action for partition barred by the statutory period provided by law,
thereby enabling Galileo Delima to perfect his claim of ownership by acquisitive
prescription to the exclusion of the petitioners from their shares in the disputed property?
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals
dated May 19, 1977, which upheld Galileo Delima's claim of exclusive ownership through
adverse possession.
The Supreme Court's decision was based on the interpretation of Article 494 of the Civil
Code, which states:
"No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-
heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership."As a rule,
possession by a co-owner will not be presumed to be adverse to the others, but will be held
to benefit all. It is understood that the co-owner or co-heir who is in possession of an
inheritance pro-indiviso for himself and in representation of his co-owners or co-heirs, if, as
such owner, he administers or takes care of the rest thereof with the obligation of delivering
it to his co-owners or co-heirs, is under the same situation as a depository, a lessee or a
trustee (Bargayo v. Camumot, 40 Phil). Thus, an action to compel partition may be filed at
any time by any of the co-owners against the actual possessor. In other words, no
prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership (Del Blanco v. Intermediate Appellate
Court).
However, from the moment one of the co-owners claims that he is the absolute and
exclusive owner of the properties and denies the others any share therein, the question
involved is no longer one of partition but of ownership (De Castro v. Echarri xxx). In
such case, the imprescriptibility of the action for partition can no longer be invoked or
applied when one of the co-owners has adversely possessed the property as exclusive
owner for a period sufficient to vest ownership by prescription.
In this case, Galileo Delima's actions, including the execution of the affidavit of "Extra-
judicial Declaration of Heirs" and the subsequent issuance of TCT No. 3009 solely in his
name, constituted an open and clear repudiation of the co-ownership. This repudiation
started the statute of limitations for adverse possession. Since the petitioners filed
their action for reconveyance and/or partition on February 29, 1968, more than ten
years after the issuance of TCT No. 3009 on February 4, 1954, their action was barred
by prescription. The Court held that Galileo's adverse possession for the statutory period
vested him with exclusive ownership of the property.
