Fangonil- Herrera v.

Fangonil
G.R. No. 169356. August 28, 2007
CHICO-NAZARIO, J:
FACTS: Petitioner and respondents are children of the late Fabian and Maria Lloren Fangonil. The
spouses died intestate, leaving an estate consisting of seven parcels of land. Prior to their death,
transactions involving parcels number six and seven took place. A portion of the sixth land and parcel
seven were sold with a right to repurchase to Oribello and Estacion, respectively. It was petitioner who
repurchased and redeemed these properties in 1956 and 1959. In 1995, six of the seven children,
excluding petitioner, filed a petition for judicial partition of the seven parcels of land. Petitioner opposed
claiming exclusive ownership over parcels six and seven, and that the right to claim by the respondents
had long prescribed as a result of their inaction.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner is correct.
HELD: Petitioner's possession of parcels 6 and 7 did not ripen into sole and exclusive ownership thereof.
Prescription applies to adverse, open, continuous, and exclusive possession. In order that a co-owner's
possession may be deemed adverse to the other co-owners, the following elements must concur: (1)
that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners;
(2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owners; and (3) that
the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing. As a rule, prescription does not run in favor of a co-
heir or co-owner as long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership; and he cannot
acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent a clear repudiation of the co-
ownership. An action to demand partition among co-owners is imprescriptible, and each co-owner may
demand at any time the partition of the common property.