You are on page 1of 1

Capitle Vs De gaban  The elements constituting adverse

possession by a co-owner against

Facts: another co-owner or cestui que
1. Fabian inherited 2 parcels of land trust are: (1) that he has performed
from his father. When Fabian died, unequivocal acts of repudiation
there were four heirs to his estates amounting to an ouster of the cestui
namely: Julian, Zacarias, Francisco que trust or other co-owners; (ii)
and Manuel. that such positive acts of
repudiation have been made known
2. When Fabian died, Julian occupied
to the cestui que trust or the other
and cultivated the 2 subject lands till
co-owners; and (iii) that the
the day he died in 1950 leaving 3 evidence thereon must be clear and
heirs, Julieta De gaban, Julia and convincing (Salvador vs. Court of
Hermegildo (Respondents) Appeals,)
3. Francisco and Zacarias died leaving  In this case the fact that the land was
their heirs behind which consisted of improved by julias brother and also
the petitioners. thhe father paying the realty texes as
4. Petitioners then filed a complaint for the exclusive owners and also the
partition of property and also for fact that after Julians (Father) they
damages against respondents intended to enjoy the disputed
asserting that Fabian(grandpa of pet property excluded of the respondents
and resp.) had contracted 2 constitute to adverse possession by
marriages. The first, with the mother co owner against co owner.
of Julian and the second marriage  In the supreme court Art. 1137, New
with the mother of the remaining Civil Code
Siblings  ART. 1137. Ownership and other
5. Pet also asserted that the property real rights over immovables also
was still undivided even the death of prescribe through uninterrupted
adverse possession thereof for thirty
Julian, further stating that the
years, without need of title or of
respondents enjoyed thhe property
good faith.
in expense of the petitioners.
 The fact that petitioners fathers,
Francisco and Zacarias were
Issue: legitimate and were co owners. The
Does co ownership in this case moment co owner Julian occupied
extinguished? the land for 67 years and yield
himself as the sole and exclusive
Rationale: Yes owner of the property, denying the
 In Court of appeals it was opined share of hhis brothers vested them
that the right of action to demand the ownership by means of
partition does not prescribe prescription
“acquisitive prescription may set in
where one of the co-owners openly COST AGAINST PETITIONERS
and adversely occupies the property
without recognizing the co-