PROPERTY
491-501
I. SI v CA
 Escolastica Armada, married to Severo Armada, Sr was the owner of a parcel
of land in Pasay City. During their lifetime, the property was transferred to their 3
sons and a single title was issued in the names of:
1. Dr. Crisostomo Armada married to Cresenciana Alejo  113.34 Sqm
2. Jose Armada married to Remedios Almanzor  113.33 Sqm
3. Dr. Severo Armada, single  113.33 Sqm
 A Deed of Sale was executed by Cresenciana Alejo as attorney-in-fact of her
husband Crisostomo, conveying 113.34 Sqm of the property in favor of Anita Si,
married to Serafin Si for the sum of 75k.
 Sps. Jose Armada & Remedios Almanzor filed a complaint to annul the Deed of
Sale and for reconveyance of the title. They alleged that a certain Conrado
Isada sold Crisostomo’s share although by this time, Crisostomo & Cresenciana
had already migrated and became US citizens. They claimed that when the Sps.
Si registered the Sale, they inserted the phrase “…that the co-owners are not
interested in buying the same, in spite of notice to them.” The complainants
contend that the Sps. Si knew of Isada’s misrepresentations.
 The Spouses Si however claim that the co-ownership between the brothers had
already been extinguished by virtue of the execution of 3 separate deeds of sale
by Escolastica to her 3 sons. Hence, Jose and Severo had no right of
redemption when Crisostomo sold his share to the Spouses Si.
 RTC dismissed the complaint. CA reversed, finding that there was no evidence
that the Register of Deeds issued the single title on the basis of 3 separate
deeds of sale to the brothers; that the Deed of Absolute Sale to the Spouses Si
refers to an “undivided 113.34 Sqm of the parcel of land;” that the sale by a co-
owner of his share in the undivided property is valid but shall not be recorded in
the Registry Property, unless accompanied by an affidavit of the Vendor that he
has given written notice to all possible redemptioners.
ISSUE: W/N JOSE ARMADA & REMEDIOS ALMANZOR ARE CO-OWNERS & MAY
REDEEM THE LOT SUBJECT OF THE SALE TO THE SPOUSES SI?
HELD:NO. The SC held that the lot had already been partitioned when the parents
executed 3 deeds of sale to the 3 sons, documents of which had already been
registered with the Register of Deeds. Every portion conveyed & transferred to the 3
sons was definitely described & segregated and w/ the corresponding technical
descriptions. The SC held that there had been an extrajudicial partition. Even Jose’s
testimony that the land was undivided was contradicted by his wife when she said
that they had been receiving rent from the property specifically allotted to Jose.
After the physical division of the lot among the brothers, the community
ownership terminated, and the right of redemption for each brother was no longer
available. Under Art.484, there is co-ownership when the ownership of an undivided
thing or right belongs to different persons. There is no co-ownership when the
different portions owned by different people are already concretely determined and
separately identifiable, even if not yet technically described. This situation makes
inapplicable the provision on the right of redemption of a co-owner. The court also
noted that Jose Armada was well informed of the impending sale of Crisostomo’s
share as evidenced by a letter he wrote to Crisostomo about the sale.
ĵĕňņÿ
ARTS.
II. VDA. DE ESPINA v ABAYA & SOFIA & JOSE ESPINA
 Marcos Espina died and was survived by his spouse, Simprosa Vda. De Espina
and their kids: Recaredo, Timoteo, Celia, Gaudiosa, Necifora, Sofia and Jose.
Marcos’ estate consisted of 4 parcels of land in Surigao del Sur.
 An action for Partition was filed by Simprosa and her kids, except Sofia & Jose.
The complaint alleged that Parcel #1 was exclusively owned by Marcos and so is
co-owned by the family members in 8 equal parts, while the other 3 parcels are
CPG properties and therefore ½ is owned by Simprosa and the other half owned
by her and her children in 8 equal parts. It also alleged that Parcel #1 was already
subdivided into 2 lots, one in the name of Sofia as trustee for the heirs of Marcos,
and the other lot in the name of Jose as trustee for the heirs of Marcos as well.
 Simprosa presently occupies Parcel #2, Timoteo occupies #3 and Recaredo #4.
 Petitioners demanded the partition several times but the respondents refused.
Private Respondents claim Marcos and Simprosa together with their kids made a
temporary verbal division and assignment of shares among the children. After
Marcos’ death, the temporary division was finalized by the heirs.
 RTC dismissed the complaint. The notice of appeal was filed out of time hence
this petition.
ISSUE: 1. W/N THE ACTION FOR PARTITION HAS PRESCRIBED?
2. W/N THE ORAL PARTITION AMONG CO-HEIRS IS VALID?
HELD:
1. NO. An action for partition is imprescriptible. However, an action for partition
among co-heirs ceases to be such, and becomes one for title where the
defendants allege exclusive ownership.
In the case at bar, the imprescriptibility of the action for partition cannot
be invoked because 2 of the heirs, Sofia and Jose, possessed the property as
exclusive owners and their possession for a period of 21 years is sufficient to
acquire it by prescription. Hence from the moment these co-heirs claim that
they are absolute and exclusive owners of the properties and deny the others
any share therein, the question involved is no longer one of partition but of
ownership.
2. YES. The SC sustained the validity of the partition and cited Tolentino: “An
agreement of partition may be made orally or in writing. An oral agreement for
the partition of property owned in common is valid and enforceable upon the
parties. The Statute of Frauds has no operation in this kind of agreement, for
partition is not a conveyance of property but simply a segregation and
designation of the part of the property which belong to the co-owners.
1
PROPERTY ARTS. 491-501

III. ANGELA TUASON v ANTONIO TUASON, JR. & GREGORIO ARANETA INC.

 Siblings Angela, Nieves and Antonio Tuason, commonly owned a parcel of land HELD:NO. Art. 400 provides that “No co-owner shall be obliged to remain a party to
in Sampaloc, Manila, each owning an undivided 1/3 portion. Nieves asked for a the community, Each may, at any time, demand the partition of the thing held in
partition but there was an objection that dividing the property would result in common. xxx Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a specified
decrease of value. Nieves then offered to sell her share to her siblings as well as length of time, not exceeding 10 years, shall be valid. This period may be a new
her mother, but all declined. Finally, her share was sold to Gregorio Araneta agreement.”
and a new title was issued. The SC agreed with the trial court that Art. 400 is inapplicable. The contract,
 The 3 co-owners, through a Memorandum of Agreement, agreed to have the far from violating the legal provision that forbids a co-owner from being obliged to
land subdivided into small lots and then sold, the proceeds to be later divided remain a party to the community, precisely has for its purpose and object the
among them. dissolution of the co-ownership and of the community by selling the parcel held in
 Before, during and after the execution of this contract, Atty. Antonio Araneta common and dividing the proceeds of the sale among the co-owners. The obligation
acted as attorney-in-fact and lawyer of Angela and Antonio. At the same time, he imposed in the contract to preserve the co-ownership until all the lots shall have
was a member of the Board of Directors of the 3rd co-owner, Araneta Inc. been sold, is a mere incident to the main object of dissolving the co-ownership.
 The MOA provided that the 3 co-owners agreed to improve the property by filling The court found no valid ground for the partition because only 2.5% of the
it and constructing roads and curbs then subdividing it into small lots for sale. parcel owned in common remains unsold, 97.5% had already been sold. It also
Araneta Inc. was to finance the whole development and subdivision. In return for observed that the partnership is in the process of being dissolved and is about to be
this financial burden, Araneta was to receive 50% of the gross selling price of dissolved, and even assuming Art400 were applicable, there should be no fear that
the lots, and any rents that may be collected from the property. While in the the remaining 2.5% could not be disposed w/in the 4years that is left of the 10-year
process of sale, the remaining 50% was to be divided in equal portions among period fixed by Art.400.
the 3 co-owners.
 Par. 9 of the MOA provided that it shall remain in full force and effect during all
the time it may be necessary for Araneta to fully sell the property. Par. 11 gives
Araneta full power and authority to sign for all the co-owners all the contracts of
sale. Par. 15 provides that no co-owner could sell, alienate or dispose of his
ownership, interest or participation w/o first giving preference to the other co-
owners to purchase under same offer of another prospective buyer.
 Angela Tuason subsequently revoked the powers conferred on her attorney-in-
fact and lawyer, Atty. Antonio Araneta. She informed Araneta Inc that she was
rescinding the MOA because of alleged breach of its terms and asked for a
partition. A complaint was filed by Angela for partition and her share of the rents.
 RTC dismissed. Because the property is valued higher than 50k, appeal came
directly to the SC.

ISSUE:
W/N PARS. 9, 11 AND 15 OF THE MOA VIOLATE ART. 400 OF THE CIVIL
CODE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID?

ĵĕňņÿ 2
PROPERTY
IV. PHILIP SANTOS & HEIRS OF ELISEO SANTOS v LADISLAO SANTOS
 When Bonifacio Santos died intestate, he was survived by his 3 children: his two
sons Ladislao and Eliseo, and their sister Isidra. The latter was the owner of a
parcel of land in Gen. Luna Street in San Mateo, Rizal where a house was built
[Isidra Property]. A cadastral survey of lands in San Mateo was then undertaken
and the lot was identified as Lot 1522.
 Ladislao and his wife executed a “Deed of Absolute Conveyance with Right of
Way” in favor of his brother Eliseo Santos. Thereafter, Isidra died intestate.
 2 years after, the Provincial Assessor issued a tax declaration over the Isidra
property in the name of Eliseo’s son, Virgilio and the latter’s wife Virginia Santos.
Virgilio then executed a “Deed of Absolute Sale of Unregistered Residential
Land” in favor of his brother, Philip Santos. Spouses Virgilio Santos vacated the
said property and resided at Kambal Street in San Mateo, Rizal, formerly owned
by Philip Santos. The latter then had the house on the Isidra Property
demolished and had his shop installed there instead.
 Virgilio Santos died intestate and was survived by his wife Virginia. Ladislao
Santos and Philip Santos resided in the US.
 Despite the Deed of Absolute Conveyance with Right of Way executed by
Ladislao in favor of Eliseo, the children of Ladislao [Noe Santos, et al.] and their
uncle Eliseo signed an application for registration of “their title” over the lot. RTC
declared the applicants absolute owners of the land and was registered under
the names of Noe Santos, et al. and Eliseo Santos.
 Noe Santos, in behalf of his siblings and Eliseo, had a subdivision plan prepared
wherein the land was divided into 2. Under a “Partition Agreement,” Lot 1522-A
was adjudicated to Eliseo and Lot 1522-B went to Noe Santos, et al.
 A few years after the partition, a letter was sent in behalf of Ladislao Santos to
Philip Santos alleging that Ladislao had discovered that the Isidra Property had
been declared for taxation purposes, under the name of Philip Santos.
 Ladislao then filed an action for judicial partition of the Isidra property. The RTC
dismissed the complaint . The CA granted the appeal and reversed the RTC
decision, declaring Ladislao and Eliseo as each entitled to ½ pro indiviso shares
in the Isidra Property.
ISSUE:
1. W/N THE TRANSFER OF THE ISIDRA PROP’Y FROM ELISEO TO
VIRGILIO TO PHILIP SANTOS WAS VALID?
2. W/N THE ACTION FOR PARTITION IS ALREADY BARRED BY
ORDINARY ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION OF 10 YEARS?
HELD:
1. NO. Considering that Eliseo and Philip disputed the status of Ladislao as co-owner
on the ground that the brothers entered into a Combined Deed of partition
wherein the entire Isidra Property was conveyed to Eliseo, it was incumbent
upon them to present the best evidence to prove the same.
ĵĕňņÿ
ARTS. 491-501
The SC agreed with the CA that the claim of subsisting co-ownership by
Ladislao over the Isidra property has not been effectively refuted by Eliseo and
Philip, and that Eliseo and his successors-in-interest [Virgilio and Philip] did not
acquire exclusive title over the entire Isidra property. Petitioners were not able to
adduce evidence as to the original document of the Combined Deed of Partition
executed by the brothers Ladislao and Eliseo. In the absence of such document,
petitioners’ arguments regarding said partition must fail.
When she testified in court, Virginia Santos claimed that 3 copies of the deed
were made, 1 given to Virgilio Santos who later filed it with the Provincial
Assessor’s office, xeroxed such and gave a copy to Philip Santos, 1 retained by
Eliseo and another retained by Notary Public Atty. Sixto Natividad. While evidence
was adduced that the copy filed in the provincial Assessor’s Office was burned,
the petitioners failed to adduce proof that the copy of Atty. Natividad was lost or
destroyed.
The Court also held that the tax declarations in Virgilio’s and Philip’s name
were not conclusive and indisputable evidence to show that the lot was conveyed
to Virgilio then to Philip. The court gave no credence to the testimonies of Virginia
Santos, Philip Santos and Rodolfo Bautista [representative of Rizal Provincial
Assessor] on the existence of the document of Combined Deed of Partition.
2. NO. Considering that there was no proof that Ladislao Santos executed any
“Combined Deed of partition” in tandem with Eliseo Santos, the court ruled that a
Co-ownership still subsisted between the brothers over the Isidra property. This
being the case, Art. 494 was applied, providing that prescription does not run in
favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or his co-heirs so long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
Prescription, as a mode of terminating a relation of co-ownership, must have
been preceded by repudiation of the co-ownership. The act of repudiation, in turn,
is subject to certain conditions:
A. A co-owner repudiates the co-ownership
B. Such an act of repudiation is clearly made known to the other co-owners
C. The evidence thereon is clear and conclusive
D. He has been in possession through open, continuous, exclusive and
notorious possession of the property for the period required by law.
There was no showing that Eliseo Santos had complied with these requisites.
The court was not convinced that Eliseo had repudiated the co-ownership and
even if he did, there is no showing that the same had been clearly made known to
Ladislao. Penultimately, the action for partition is not barred by laches. An action
to demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches. Each co-
owner may demand at any time the partition of the common property.
3
PROPERTY
V. ADALIA FRANCISCO v BOISER
 Adalia Francisco and 3 of her sisters, Ester, Elizabeth and Adeluisa were co-
owners of 4 parcels of registered lands on which stands the 10 Commandments
building in Caloocan City. They sold 1/5 of their undivided share in the land to
their mother, Adel Blas, for 10k making her a co-owner of the property.
 W/o knowledge of the other co-owners, Adela Blas sold her 1/5 share for 10k to
Zenaida Boiser, another sister of petitioner.
 A case was filed by Boiser against the co-owners, demanding her share in the
rentals collected from the tenants in the building. In reply, Adalia informed
respondent that she was exercising her right of redemption as a co-owner of the
subject property. Adalia deposited the amount of 10k as redemption price with
the Clerk of Court. RTC dismissed the complaint.
 Petitioner Adalia then instituted a civil case alleging that the 30-day period for
redemption under Art. 1623 of the Civil Code had not begun to run against her
since the vendor, Adela Blas, never informed her and the owners about the sale
to respondent. She learned of the sale only when she received summons for the
case instituted against her by Boiser.
 Boiser then contended that Adalia knew of the sale early on because she wrote
petitioner a letter informing the latter of the sale with a demand to a share of the
rentals. Said letter was sent with a copy of the Deed of Sale between Adela Blas
and Boiser. RTC dismissed petitioner’s complaint for legal redemption. The court
considered the letter sent with a copy of the deed as substantial compliance with
the required written notice under Art1623. Consequently, it ruled that the 30-day
period of redemption be counted from the time Adalia sent letters to the tenants
in response to demands by Boiser for a share of the rentals. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: W/N THE LETTER SENT BY BOISER TO ADALIA NOTIFYING THE
LATTER OF THE SALE OF ADELA BLAS’ 1/5 SHARE, WITH A COPY OF
THE DEED OF SALE, CAN BE CONSIDERED SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE
WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR LEGAL REDEMPTION?
HELD: NO. The RTC and CA held that Art1623 does not prescribe any particular
form of written notice. The lower courts relied in the case of Etcuban v CA wherein it
was held that it was of no moment that the notice of sale to the co-owners was given
by the vendee and not by the vendor who was the original co-owner. It was stated
that so long as the co-owner is informed in writing of the sale and its particulars, the
30 days for redemption starts running.
However, the SC cited the ruling in the later case of Salatandol v Retes
wherein the court expressly affirmed the ruling that the notice required by Art1623
must be given by the vendor. The 30 days for making the redemption are to be
counted from notice in writing by the vendor because the seller of an undivided
interest is in the best position to know who are his co-owners, that under the law
must be notified of the sale. Also, the notice by the seller removes all doubts as to
the fact of the sale. Therefore, the court ruled that the receipt by Adalia of the
summons in the Civil Case constituted actual knowledge on the basis of which she
may now exercise her right of redemption 30 days from finality of this decision.
ĵĕňņÿ
ARTS. 491-501
VI. JOSEFA MAESTRADO v CA
 Spouses Ramon and Rosario Chaves were the registered owners of a parcel of
land in Cagayan de Oro City. Upon their death, they were survived by their heirs:
Carmen & Josefa [petitioners], Angel, Amparo, Concepcion and Salvador.
 To settle the estate, Angel initiated intestate proceedings in the CGI and was
appointed administrator. An inventory was made and the heirs agreed on partition.
They filed an action for partition and the court appointed Hernando Roa, husband
of Amparo, as receiver. The court approved the partition but the records were lost.
 This notwithstanding, the estate was actually divided. At the time of the actual
partition, Salvador had already died and his share was given to his only son
Ramon. Hernando delivered the respective shares according to the scheme
agreed upon. Subsequently, Concepcion sold her share to Angel and Ramon sold
his share to Amparo. Hence, ½ of Lot 3046 went to Angel and ½ to Amparo.
 However, Lot 5872 was not included in the partition documents. The lot was
thereafter delivered to petitioners Josefa and Carmen and they have been in
possession since then. Petitioners insist the non-inclusion was inadvertent and
that they only realized such fact after the husband of Josefa died and in his
belongings they found the partition order where Lot5872 was not included.
 In an effort to set things right, petitioners prepared a quitclaim to confirm the
alleged oral agreement. Respondents dispute the voluntariness of their consent or
the consent of their predecessors-in-interest to the quitclaim.
 6 years after execution of the quitclaim, lot5872 still remains under the name of
the deceased Spouses Chaves. Thus, Ramon Chaves [son of deceased
Salvador] and Jesus Roa [son of Amparo] together with Natividad Santos
[daughter and attorney-in-fact of Concepcion] wrote to their uncle Angel Chaves
[court appointed administrator of estate] that the property belongs to the estate of
their deceased grandparents, has not yet been distributed to the concerned heirs.
 Petitioners then filed a case for quieting of title in the RTC. The RTC ruled in favor
of respondents and declared the lot still common property. CA affirmed.
ISSUE: 1. W/N PETITIONERS ARE PROPER PARTIES TO BRING ACTION FOR
QUIETING OF TITLE?
2. W/N LOT5872 IS STILL COMMON PROPERTY?
3. W/N THE SIGNED QUITCLAIMS ARE VALID?
HELD:
1. YES. Persons having legal or equitable title to or interest in real property may bring
such action. Moreover, if the plaintiff is in possession of the land, such action is
imprescriptible. Laches does not apply in this case because petitioners’ possession
of the lot has rendered their right to quiet title imprescriptible. The cloud to their title
only existed when Angel Chaves transmitted to them the letter of Jesus, Ramon and
Natividad, 21 days before they filed the action for quieting of title. Therefore, no
laches could set in under the circumstances since petitioners were prompt and
vigilant in protecting their rights.
4
PROPERTY ARTS. 491-501

VII. DELIMA v CA
Continuation - JOSEFA MAESTRADO v CA  Lino Delima acquired a lot of the Talisay-Minglanilla Friar lands Estate in Cebu
City by sale on installments from the government. He later died, leaving his 4
siblings as heirs: Eulalio, Juanita, Galileo and Vicente. After his death, title was
issued in the name of “The Legal heirs of Lino Delima, deceased, represented by
2. NO. Lot5872 is no longer common property of the heirs of the deceased spouses Galileo Delima.”
Ramon and Rosario Chaves. Petitioners’ ownership of said lot was acquired by  Galileo then executed an affidavit of Extra-judicial Declaration of Heirs and title
reason of the oral partition agreed upon by the deceased spouses’ heirs sometime was issued in the name of Galileo alone, to the exclusion of the other heirs.
before 1956. That oral agreement was confirmed by the notarized quitclaims Thereafterm he declared the lot in his name for taxation purposes.
executed by the said heirs.  Petitioners, who are heirs of Eulalio and Juanita, filed with the CFI an action for
Despite claims of private respondents that Lot5872 was mistakenly reconveyance and/or partition of property and for annulment of the title issued to
delivered to petitioners, nothing was done to rectify it for a period of 27 years. The Galileo. RTC ruled in favor of petitioners, giving ¼ pro indiviso share to the heirs
court was convinced that there was indeed an oral agreement of partition entered of each of the 4 siblings. CA reversed and upheld Galileo’s claim that the other
into by the heirs. A possessor of real estate property is presumed to have title siblings already relinquished and waived their rights to the property in Galileo’s
thereto unless the adverse claimant establishes a better right. In the instant case, it favor, considering that he alone paid the remaining balance of the purchase price
is the petitioners, being the possessors of the lot, who have established a superior and the realty taxes thereon.
right thereto by virtue of the oral partition.
ISSUE: W/N PETITIONERS’ ACTION FOR PARTITION IS ALREADY BARRED BY
3. YES. The said notarized quitclaims signed by the heirs were found not to have PRESCRIPTION?
been vitiated by fraud and hence, were valid. Since the oral partition has been duly
HELD:YES. As a rule, possession by a co-owner will not be presumed to be adverse
established, the notarized quitclaims confirm such prior oral agreement as well as
to the others, but will be held to benefit all. It is understood that the co-owner or co-heir
the petitioners’ title of ownership over the subject lot. More importantly,
who is in possession of an inheritance pro-indiviso for himself and in representation of
independent of such oral partition, the quitclaims in the instant case are valid
his co-owners, if as such owner he administers or takes care of the rest with the
contracts of waiver of property rights.
obligation of delivering to his co-owners, is under the same situation as a depository, a
Fraud is never presumed. The instances of fraud allegedly committed in this
lessee or a trustee. Thus, an action to compel partition may be filed at any time by any
case constitute mere carelessness in the conduct of the affairs of the heirs
of the co-owners against the actual possessor. No prescription shall run in favor of a
concerned.
co-owner against his co-owners so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the
co-ownership.
However, from the moment one of the co-owners claims that he is the absolute
and exclusive owner of the property and denies the other any share therein, the
question involved is no longer of partition but of ownership. In such case, the
imprescriptibility of the action for partition can no longer be invoked when one of the
co-owners has adversely possessed the property as exclusive owner for a period
sufficient to vest ownership by prescription.
In order that possession is considered adverse to the cestui que trust amounting
to a repudiation of the co-ownership, the ff elements must concur:
1. That the trustee has performed unequivocal acts amounting to an ouster of
the cestui que trust
2. That such positive acts of repudiation had been made known to the cestui
que trust.
3. That the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.
The court held that when a co-owner of the property executed a deed of partition
and on the strength thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in the name of their
predecessor and the issuance of anew one wherein he appears as the new owner of
the property, thereby in effect denying or repudiating the ownership of the other co-
owners, the Statute of Limitations started to run.

ĵĕňņÿ 5