Bicarme vs. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 51914.

June 6, 1990)
FACTS:
1. Sps. Bicarme were the original co-owners of two parcels of land in Abra
2. Sps. Bicarme died and survived by 3 children –
a. Sebastian – died childless
b. Victorina – died within only child Cristina (respondent)
c. Maria – petitioner herein, still alive
3. Cristina filed action for partition, because her aunt, Maria, refused to share with her the
yearly fruits of the disputed parcels of land – alleging that they are co-owners beingheirs of Sps.
Bicarme.
4. Maria defense –
a. They are not co-owners/co-heirs;
b. She acquired lands in 1925 from sps. Bidaya and since then until the present, had
been OCEN possession and enjoyment and in the concept of absolute owner thereof
c. Cristina never shared in payment of taxes and, finally, that Cristina was presumed
already dead
5. RTC – Cristina and Maria are co-owners/co-heirs since in Maria’s DOAS, she
expressly stated “that I inherited from my father”, they being co-owners, Cristina’s share
cannot be ousted by prescription
6. Maria’s argument before SC –
a. Even if co-owners, applying Article 1116, Cristina's rights are barred by prescription
since longest period of both acquisitive and extinctive prescription is only ten years;
Cristina asserted her claims 34 years after her right of action accrued (when Cristina first
tried to claim her hereditary rights but Maria refused, ie. repudiation)

ISSUE: WON Maria has acquired ownership over Cristina’s share by acquisitive prescription

HELD: NO

ACTION FOR PARTITION IMPRESCRIPTIBLE

- A co-owner is a trustee for the other co-owner. Possession by one co-owner (trustee) is not
deemed adverse to the others. In this sense, an action to compel partition will lie at any time
and does not prescribe. - HOWEVER, although an action for partition is imprescriptible,
prescription CAN still be a mode of acquiring ownership (OMG)

ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION MAY RUN AGAINST CO-OWNERS

- An action for partition implies that the thing is still owned in common. If a co-owner or co-heir
holds the property in exclusive adverse possession as owner, asserting sole and exclusive
dominion for the required period, he can acquire sole title to it as against the co-heirs or co-
owners. The imprescriptibility of an action for partition cannot thus be invoked when one of the
co-owners has possessed the property as exclusive owner, and for a period sufficient to acquire
it by prescription. - From the moment one of the co-owners claims that he is the absolute and
exclusive owner of the properties and denies the others any share therein, the question
involved is no longer one of partition, but of ownership
STANDARD OF OCEN IN CO-OWNERSHIP HIGHER THAN AS AGAINST STRANGERS

- Tolentino: For possession to be deemed adverse against co-owner the following must concur:
o (1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of
the cestui que trust or other co-owner, (2) that such positive acts of repudiation hav
been made known to the cestui que trust or other co-owners, and (3) that the evidence
thereon must be clear and convincing
- Mangyan v. Ilan: Acts which are adverse to strangers may not be sufficiently adverse to the co-
owners. A mere silent possession by a co-owner, his receipt of rents, fruits or profits from the
property, the erection of buildings and fences and the planting of trees thereon, and the
payment of land taxes, cannot serve as proof of exclusive ownership, if it is not borne out by
clear, complete and conclusive evidence that he exercised acts of possession which
unequivocally constituted an ouster or deprivation of the rights of the other co-owners.
- IN THE PRESENT CASE, Maria Bicarme disclaims co-ownership by denying land being
inheritance; but this claim not proved. Other than the tax declarations in her name no proof to
this effect. Payment of land taxes does not constitute sufficient repudiation of the co-
ownership, as it is not an act adverse to Cristina's rights. Also, Maria did not make known her
repudiation to Cristina, because all along, Maria presumed her to be dead. THUS, Maria’s
refusal to share with Cristina the yearly profits stemmed from Cristina's failure to share in the
yearly taxes. Acquisitive prescription cannot therefore apply in this case.

NO LACHES
- Additionally, it follows that neither can the doctrine on laches apply, for absent acquisitive
prescription, (i.e., where it has not been shown that the possession of the claimant has been
adverse and exclusive and opposed to the right of the others) the case is not one of ownership,
in which case, the doctrine on imprescriptibility of an actions for partition will apply. Cristina's
right to partition will therefore prosper.