Case Digests Property I

NILO MERCADO vs. CA and AUREA MERCADO G.R. No. 108952 January 26, 1995 ___________________________ FACTS Aurea seeks partition and reconveyance to her of one-half of a real property in QC, registered in the name of Nilo. Aurea is legitimate sister. Before she left for US in 1964 she gave her brother money to buy this lot but she was not given any receipt. Nilo testified that the lot was bought out of his money and a portion borrowed from Aurea which he used to pay the downpayment. The rest was through SSS. It was however foreclosed by SSS. Then he redeemed the property, got a certificate of redemption after the cancellation of the mortgage with SSS. As proof of his ownership, he has the tax declaration, TCT and real property tax bill receipts. ISSUES Who owns the property? Whether the mortgage of the subject property to the SSS, its foreclosure and subsequent redemption by the petitioner extinguished private respondent's co-ownership. HELD The subject property is co-owned by Nilo and Aurea. This finding is based on the admission made by petitioner himself in his Affidavit: “xxx That I am the co-owner of the land, with my sister Aurea.” This affidavit is high quality evidence. Second ISSUE: Pursuant to Art. 493, a co-owner has the right to alienate his pro-indiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent of the other co-owners. Nevertheless, as a mere part owner, he cannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners. The prohibition is premised on the elementary rule that "no one can give what he does not have.” (Nemo dat quod non habet). Thus, in Bailon-Casilao vs. CA:

“. . . since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one-co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.” The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recovery of possession of the thing owned in common from the third person who substituted the co-owner or co-owners who alienated their shares, but the DIVISION of the common property of the co-owners who possessed and administered it. In the case at bench, the petitioner borrowed money from SSS and mortgaged the subject property without the knowledge and consent of his co-owner. Necessarily, Aurea could not have helped in the payment of loan nor could she have redeemed it. In other words, Aurea did not voluntary relinquish at any period of time her pro-indiviso share in the subject property. Petition denied.

RESTITUTO and Jesus CENIZA and JESUS CENIZA vs. CA G.R. No. L-46345 January 30, 1990 ______________________________ FACTS Review of CA order in "Restituto Ceniza, et al. vs. Magno Dabon, et al.," dismissing the petitioners' complaint for reconveyance of their shares in coownership property and reversing the decision of the trial court in their favor. Petitioners filed against private respondents, an action in CFI for recovery of their title, which originally formed part of "Hacienda de Mandaue" of the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu, covered by reconstituted OCT in the name of "Vicente Dabon married to Marcela [or Marcelina] Ceniza." Petitioners are descendants of Manuel Ceniza while the private respondents are the descendants of his sister, Sofia Ceniza. Sofia Ceniza was childless but had an adopted daughter Flaviana Ceniza, who begot a daughter named Marced Ceniza and who in turn had a daughter named Marcelina (or Marcela) Ceniza who married Vicente Dabon. Private respondents are the children of this marriage and they are the greatgreat-grandchildren of Sofia Ceniza. On the other hand, Manuel Ceniza had an only son, Pablo, who had two sons, Santiago and Jose Ceniza. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and a certain Nemesia Ceniza-Albina are their children and the great-grandchildren of Manuel Ceniza. When Hacienda de Mandaue was subdivided for resale to the occupants in 1929, Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon jointly purchased the lot and agreed, for convenience, to have the land registered in the name of Dabon. Since then, Jose Ceniza, Vicente Dabon, and their heirs have possessed their respective portions of the land, declared the same for taxation, paid real estate taxes on their respective shares, and made their respective installment payments to the Seminario.

After Dabon died, his 7 children succeeded to his possession of a portion of the land. On the request of Jacinta Dabon and Restituto Ceniza, the lot was divided into 3 parts: that for Marcela Ceniza; that for Restituto Ceniza; and that for Nemesia Ceniza-Albina, who later bequeathed her share to her brother, Jesus Ceniza. The present controversy arose because the private respondents refused to convey the last two lots to the petitioners. They claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Dabon, was the sole and exclusive owner of the lot, by purchase from the Seminario. In their answer to the petitioners' complaint for reconveyance, they alleged that the petitioners' right of action had already prescribed. Petitioners replied that Vicente Dabon held the land in trust for them, as co-owners, hence, their action for reconveyance was imprescriptible. CFI rendered judgment for the petitioners finding that there existed a coownership among the parties. It ordered the private respondents to execute deeds of conveyance of the two lots in favor of Restituto and Jesus Ceniza. On appeal, CA reversed CFI saying that petitioners' right of action had prescribed after the lapse of 20 years from the date of registration of the land in Vicente Dabon's name. Hence, this petition. ISSUE Whether or not the registration of the title of the land in the name of one of the co-owners, constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. HELD Yes. CFI correctly ruled that since a trust relation and co-ownership were proven to exist between the predecessors- in-interest of petitioners and private respondents, prescription did not run in favor of Dabon's heirs except from the time that they

repudiated the co-ownership and made the repudiation known to the other co-owners, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza. Article 494: 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 coownership. The registration in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in favor of his coowner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452: If two or more persons agree to purchase property and common consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each. The trustee's possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen into a title by prescription. Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the following circumstances: a) that the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to the ouster of the cestui que trust; b) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust; and c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive. The above elements are not present here. In Custodio v. Casiano: Where title to land was issued in the name of a co-heir merely with the understanding that he would act as a trustee of his sisters, and there is no evidence that this trust relation had ever been repudiated by said trustee, it is held that a reaction of co-ownership existed between such trustee and his sisters and the right of the successors-in-interest of said sisters to bring the present action for recovery of their shares therein against the successors-in-interest of said trustee cannot be barred by prescription.