Unsettled

Land disputes among the heirs usually arise if they do not immediately settle and divide the inherited properties upon the death of their parents or decedents like what happened in this case.

The properties involved here consisted of two big parcels of land with an area of 359,000 square meters and 15, 000 square meters covered by tax declarations in the names of the spouses Mario and Maria. Mario and Maria died way back in 1919 and their sole surviving heirs were their legitimate children Lina and Mila and their granddaughter Ana.

Mila, being the oldest, assumed administration of the properties but did not partition them. She just gave to her other co-heirs Lina and Ana their corresponding shares of the fruits thereof though not regularly and at times quite small depending on the amount of the harvest.

Later on Mila transferred the 15,000 square meter land in favor of her daughter’s husband Lito without the knowledge of Lina and Ana. Subsequently Lito in turn sold the land to his friend Ben who was able to register and obtain a Torrens Certificate of Title in his name.

But the estate remained unsettled and undivided until 1955 when Mila died. By that time the surviving heirs to the lands were Ana and the children of Mila and Lina who were both dead already. When Ana and the children of Lina demanded the settlement and partition of the estate of their grandparents, they found out that the 15,000 square meters land had already been sold and registered in Ben’s name. So, they asked for its re-conveyance.

Ben and Mila’s children however opposed the same contending that re-conveyance was no longer possible because of prescription or long lapse of time and that the property had already been sold in good faith and for value. Were they correct?

No. When the decedents Mario and Maria died way back in 1919, their heirs became co-owners of their undivided estate. And under Article 494 prescription generally does not run in favor of a co-heir or co-owner as long as he or she expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. In this case, Mila recognized Lina and Ana as co-owners of the property by giving them their shares of the harvest. So Ben and Mila’s children cannot invoke prescription.

They cannot likewise claim good faith because when Mila first sold the land, it was not yet registered under the Torrens system but was covered only by a tax declaration. The claim of good faith can be availed of or is relevant only when the subject of the sale is a land registered under the Torrens system and the purchaser is buying the same from a registered owner whose title is clean. Here the land was titled only after the sale to Ben (David vs. Bardin, 149 SCRA 140).

Books containing compilation of my articles in Labor Law and Criminal Law. Vols. I and II, now available. Call 7249445. Email address:[email protected]