ADILLE V. CA- Notice of Repudiation
Registration isnot equivalent fo notice of repudiation when itis done fo defraud theaters. Torrens ile cannot be used as shld for
rave.
FACTS:
‘Thete was a woman who had two husband, With the fst husban, she produced he Petitioner. The second husband, the
Respondents. Manan, dis woman oumed a land and sald the same toa hid person wth right of repurchase. However, when the
woman died was Petitoner who by hime repurchased the land and later on he executed an adi of sol ownership 3nd
regstered ihe and unto himself alone. Eventual the other ners (Respondent) leaned of te registration so ey fled an action to
cancel me te
Now Petitioner claims prescription almost on similar grounds wth he previous cate, ie the registration consti constucve
ratice tothe ater nes, not othe word
ISSUE:
\metner or not Pntoner is corect.
RULING:
[NOI First of al he redemption by Patiioner benefited also tha! he cumershi did nat transfer te him alone The ater hers only
need to relmourse nim.
‘As to ne notice, he registration by Petioner cannot be consitered as noi of ne reputation Decause ney were done in bad ath
to deprive the other co-heits. In fac, they were done clandestine. One of he o-hei in fact was in possession ofthe land and yet he
was not formed ofthe penaingregstraton nor ousted by Fetter Hence, should there nave Deen any notice, woul be during
Itigation when the heir ally learned ofthe registration. In that ease, there is no prescripion yetRustico Adille v CA, Emeteria/ Teodoro/ Domingo’ Josefa/ Santiago Asejo
GR No. L-44546
1/29/1988
Facts of the ease:
eliza Alzul had an 11,525 sqm parcel of land, She had 2 valid marriages in her lifetime. The
first mariage bore a single child (petitioner) and the second marriage bore 5 (respondents).
During the lime Felisa was still alive, she sold the property with a period of repurchase of 3
years. Aller she died, petitioner repurchased the land in ils entirety and he subsequently claimed
the land solely his. Upon discovery of this by his half-brothersisisters, they Filed a ease for
partition of the repurchased land.
The issue raised in this case arose when the CA ruled in favor of the respondents, stating that the
petitioner and respondents are co-owners of the land in question. Furthermore, this case is traced.
further back to when
Issue:
Whether or not the act of repurchasing the land and paying its full amount entitles the
to sole ownership of the land?
Held:
No.
Ratio:
The tight of repurchase »
ty be exercised by « co-owner with respect to his share alone.
the
While the records show that the petitioner redeemed the property in its entirety, shoulderin
expenses therefor, that did not make him the owner of all of it. In other words. it did not put
ig State OF cO-ownership. Necessary expenses may be incurred by one co-owner,
js righ to collect reimbursement from the rem no doubt
thal redemption of property entails a necessary expense
Under the Civil Code:
ART. 488, Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the
expenses of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes.
Any one of the latter may exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his
undivided interest as may be equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No such waiver
stall be made if itis prejudicial to the co-ownership