Useless and ineffective

Family relations under the Family Code (Article 150) which is the primary basis for succession include only relationship by blood, not by affinity. This is the ruling in this case involving a valuable piece of land.

The parcel of land here had an area of 3,120 square meters covered by Original Certificate of Title No. RO-360 owned by Mang Dencio who was married to Aling Rita. The couple however died without any children. So when Mang Dencio died in 1962 the property was transferred by succession to her surviving sisters, Mona and Doria who became its co-owners by operation of law.

Mona and Doria however did not partition the property until both of them died. Mona had a daughter while Doria had six surviving children. The surviving children also did not partition the property yet until they all died and were survived by their grandchildren. Mona only had a grandson, Leo, while Doria had 12 grandchildren.

The property still remained undivided among the grandchildren although Doria’s grandchildren took sole possession of the property while Leo acquired custody of OCT RO-360. But in 1979, Max, who was married to Cita one of Doria’s grand children, executed an Affidavit of Ownership of Land and obtained a tax declaration over the property solely in his name to the exclusion of Leo and all the other grandchildren of Doria. Later on in 1988, Max even deprived Leo of the fruits of the property.

Leo did not take any action until 1997 when he learned that the property was already partitioned among the heirs of Doria to his exclusion. He filed an action with the Regional Trial Court for partition, recovery of possession with damages against the grandchildren and heirs of Doria praying, among others, that he be declared owner of one-half of the property and that Doria’s heirs be ordered to execute the necessary document for this purpose.

After hearing however, the RTC dismissed Leo’s complaint and declared the land to be the common property of the heirs of Doria only. The RTC ruled that under Article 1141 of the Civil Code, the action for partition and recovery of possession of a real property prescribes in 30 years. In this case, the RTC said that Leo had only 30 years from the death of Mang Dencio in 1962 or until 1992, within which to file the case. Since he filed the case only in 1997, his action was already barred by prescription. Besides he was also guilty of laches for his long inaction. Was the RTC correct?

No. The RTC erred in reckoning the prescriptive period within which Leo may seek partition from the death of Mang Dencio in 1962. Under Article 494 of the Civil Code (par.5), prescription shall begin to run in favor of a co-owner and against the other co-owners only from the time he positively renounces the co-ownership and makes known his repudiation to the other co-owners.

Actually in this case, even Max’s claim of exclusive ownership of the entire property as contained in his Affidavit of Ownership cannot be considered as a repudiation of the co-ownership that would start the running of the prescriptive period. In point of law, Max is not a co-owner of the property. It is his wife Cita who is the co-owner because under the Family Code, family relations as the basis of succession exclude relations by affinity. In this case, the successors- in-interest of Mang Dencio who became co-owners of the property and can validly repudiate such co-ownership for purposes of prescription are the grand children of his sisters Mona and and Doria. Max is only the grandson-in-law married to Cita the grand-daughter of Doria.

Since none of the co-owners made a valid repudiation, Leo can still file the action at any time. The RTC should not therefore have dismissed the case but should have ordered the partition of the property, one-half to Leo as successor in interest of Mona and one half to the children of Doria as her successor-in interest (Ining vs. Vega, G.R. 174727, August 12, 2013 703 SCRA, 406)

*      *      *

E-mail: [email protected].