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 yetRustico 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