Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Heirs of Flores Restar vs Heirs Dolores Cichon

THIRD DIVISION Flores’ surviving sisters Dominica Restar-Relojero


and Paciencia Restar-Manares, filed a
G.R. No. 161720 November 22, 2005 Complaint5 against Flores’ heirs for "partition [of the
lot], declaration of nullity of documents, ownership
HEIRS OF FLORES RESTAR namely: ESMENIA R. with damages and preliminary injunction" before the
RESTAR, BERNARDITA R. RENTINO, LUCIA Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Aklan.
RESTAR, RODOLFO RESTAR, JANET R.
RELOJERO, LORNA R. RAMOS, MANUEL Flores’ brothers Policarpio and Adolfo were
RESTAR, NENITA R. BELLEZA, MIRASOL R. DELA impleaded also as defendants, they being unwilling
CRUZ, ROSELLE R. MATORRE, POLICARPIO co-plaintiffs.
RESTAR and ADOLFO RESTAR, Petitioners,
vs. The plaintiffs, herein respondents, alleged that, inter
HEIRS OF DOLORES R. CICHON, namely: RUDY alia, during the lifetime of Flores, they were given their
R. CICHON, NORMA C. LACHICA, NILDA C. shares of palay from the lot and even after Flores
JUMAYAO, LYDIA C. SANTOS, and NELSON R. death up to 1991; after Flores’ death in 1989, his
CICHON; HEIRS OF PERPETUA R. STA. MARIA, widow Esmenia appealed to them to allow her to hold
namely GEORGE STA. MARIA, LILIA M. on to the lot to finance the education of her children,
MANIAGO, DERLY M. CONCEPCION, GERVY STA. to which they (the plaintiffs) agreed on the condition
MARIA, DORY M. INDULO; HEIRS OF MARIA R. that after the children had finished their education, it
ROSE, namely: TERESITA R. MALOCO, would be divided into eight (8) equal parts; and upon
ROLANDO ROSE, EDELYN R. PALACIO and their demand for partition of the lot, the defendants
MINERVA R. PASTRANA, DOMINICA RESTAR- Heirs of Flores refused, they claiming that they were
RELOJERO and PACIENCIA RESTAR the lawful owners thereof as they had inherited it from
MANARES, Respondents. Flores.

DECISION By Answer6 filed February 23, 1999, the defendants-


herein petitioners Heirs of Flores claimed that they
CARPIO MORALES, J.: had been in possession of the lot in the concept of
owner for more than thirty (30) years and have been
In 1935, Emilio Restar (Restar) died intestate, leaving paying realty taxes since time immemorial. And they
eight (8) children-compulsory heirs, namely: Flores denied having shared with the plaintiffs the produce of
Restar, Dolores Restar-Cichon, Perpetua Restar-Sta. the lot or that upon Flores’ death in 1989, Esmenia
Maria, Paciencia Restar-Manares, Dominica Restar- requested the plaintiffs to allow her to hold on to it to
Relojero, Policarpio Restar, Maria Restar-Rose and finance her children’s education, they contending that
Adolfo Restar. by 1977, the children had already finished their
respective courses.7
In 1960, Restar’s eldest child, Flores, on the basis of
a July 12, 1959 Joint Affidavit1 he executed with one The defendants Heirs of Flores further claimed that
Helen Restar, caused the cancellation of Tax after World War II and under the "new Tax
Declaration No. 66962 in Restar’s name covering a Declaration in 1945," Flores caused the transfer of
5,9183 square meter parcel of land, Lot 3177 (the lot), parcels of ricelands situated in Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan
located at Barangay Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan which to his siblings as their shares from the estate of their
was among the properties left by Restar, and the father Restar;8 and an extra-judicial partition was
issuance of Tax Declaration No. 11134 in his name. subsequently executed on September 28, 1973 by
Restar’s heirs, which was notarized by one Atty. Jose
Igtanloc, dividing and apportioning among themselves
Flores died on June 10, 1989.
four (4) parcels of land. 9
On November 5, 1998, the co-heirs of Flores
The defendant Adolfo Restar, by separate
discovered the cancellation of Restar’s Tax
Answer,10 alleged that the complaint did not state a
Declaration No. 6696 and the issuance in lieu thereof
cause of action as against him for he interposed no
of Tax Declaration No. 111344 in his name.
objection to the partition of the lot among the heirs of
Restar.
On January 21, 1999, the heirs of Flores’ sisters
Dolores R. Cichon, Perpetua Sta. Maria, and Maria
As for the defendant Policarpio Restar, he in his
Rose who had in the meantime died, together with
Amended Answer11 acknowledged Flores as the
Page 1 of 5
Heirs of Flores Restar vs Heirs Dolores Cichon
owner of the lot but claimed that a portion of it, 1,315 Respecting the defendant Policarpio’s claim that part
square meters, was sold to him as shown by a Deed of the lot had been sold to him by Flores, the
of Absolute Sale dated May 14, 1981.12 He thus appellate court sustained the trial court’s rejection
prayed that, among other things, an order for the thereof.
partition of the lot among Restar’s heirs be issued
excluding, however, that portion sold to him by Accordingly, the appellate court disposed:
Flores.13
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the appeal
After trial, Branch 3 of the RTC of Kalibo, Aklan held is hereby GRANTED in so far as plaintiffs-appellants
that Flores’ share in Restar’s estate was not the lot Heirs of Dolores Cichon, et al., are concerned
but that covered by Cadastral Lot No. 3183. and DENIED in so far as defendant-appellant
Nevertheless, the trial court, holding that Flores and Policarpio Restar. The decision of the Regional Trial
his heirs had performed acts sufficient to constitute Court of Kalibo, Aklan, Branch 3, dated June 30, 1999
repudiation of the co-ownership, concluded that they is MODIFIED. The ruling of the said court that the
had acquired the lot by prescription.14 heirs of Flores Restar have acquired ownership by
adverse possession of the land in question, Cadastral
Respecting the defendant Policarpio’s claim that a Lot No. 6686, is hereby REVERSED.
portion of the lot was sold to him, the trial court
discredited the same upon noting that Flores’ SO ORDERED. (Emphasis in the original)
signature in the purported Deed of Sale differed from
those appearing in other documents submitted by the The appellate court having denied reconsideration of
parties; in 1981, when the said Deed of Sale was its decision, only the defendants Heirs of Flores filed
alleged to have been executed, Flores was admittedly the present petition, assigning the following errors:
paralyzed and bedridden and could not have written
his name in a "straight" manner, as in fact his
A. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED
signature appearing in at least two documents dated
IN REVERSING THE RULING OF THE LOWER
1980 was "crooked," and there existed discrepancies
COURT THAT THE PETITIONERS AS HEIRS OF
in the spelling of Flores’ wife’s signature which read
FLORES RESTAR HAVE ACQUIRED OWNERSHIP
"Esmeña" in the deed, and not as "Esmenia."15
BY ADVERSE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN
QUESTION.
The trial court thus dismissed the complaint by
Decision of June 30, 1999.16
B. THE COURT OF APPEALS PATENTLY ERRED
IN NOT RULING THAT THERE WAS ACQUISITIVE
On appeal by the defendants Heirs of Flores and PRESCRIPTION ON THE LAND IN QUESTION
Policarpio Restar, the appellate court, by Decision of NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE LAND IN
October 29, 2002.17 reversed the decision of the trial QUESTION HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE NAME
court, it finding that the defendants Heirs of Flores OF FLORES RESTAR, FATHER OF PETITIONERS,
failed to prove that their possession of the lot AS EARLY AS 1960 AND THAT PETITIONERS AND
excluded their co-owners or that they derived title to it THEIR PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST HAVE BEEN
from a separate conveyance to them by Restar. IN OPEN, CONTINUOUS, EXCLUSIVE AND
NOTORIOUS POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN
The appellate court further found that there was no QUESTION IN THE CONCEPT OF OWNER FOR
adequate notice by Flores to his other co-heirs/co- MORE THAN THIRTY (30) YEARS.20
owners of the repudiation of the co-ownership and
neither was there a categorical assertion by the The petition is impressed with merit.
defendants of their exclusive right to the entire lot that
barred the
Article 494 of the New Civil Code expressly provides:
plaintiffs’ claim of ownership.18
ART. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in
the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any
And the appellate court found it credible for the time the partition of the thing owned in common,
plaintiffs to have failed to immediately take legal insofar as his share is concerned.
action to protect their rights on account of forbearance
towards their eldest brother who had asked them to
xxx
continue cultivating the lot to support his children’s
education.19
Page 2 of 5
Heirs of Flores Restar vs Heirs Dolores Cichon
No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co- succession. Respondents never possessed the lot,
heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he however, much less asserted their claim thereto until
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership. January 21, 1999 when they filed the complaint for
partition subject of the present petition.
While the action to demand partition of a co-owned
property does not prescribe, a co-owner may acquire In contrast, Flores took possession of the lot after
ownership thereof by prescription21 where there exists Restar’s death and exercised acts of dominion
a clear repudiation of the co-ownership, and the co- thereon – tilling and cultivating the land, introducing
owners are apprised of the claim of adverse and improvements, and enjoying the produce thereof.
exclusive ownership.22
The statutory period of prescription, however,
Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real commenced not in 1935 but in 1960 when Flores,
rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary who had neither title nor good faith, secured a tax
acquisitive prescription requires possession of things declaration in his name and may, therefore, be said to
in good faith and with just title for a period of ten have adversely claimed ownership of the lot. And
years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive respondents were also deemed to have been on said
prescription can only be extraordinary in character date become aware of the adverse claim.24
which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for
thirty years. Flores’ possession thus ripened into ownership
through acquisitive prescription after the lapse of thirty
Thus, the New Civil Code provides: years in accordance with the earlier quoted Article
1137 of the New Civil Code.
ART. 1117. Acquisitive prescription of dominion and
other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. The following observations of the trial court thus merit
this Court’s approval.
Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession
of things in good faith and with just title for the time The evidence proved that as far back as 1959, Flores
fixed by law. Restar adjudicated unto himself the whole land in
question as his share from his father by means of a
ART. 1134. Ownership and other real rights over joint affidavit which he executed with one Helen
immovable property are acquired by ordinary Restar, and he requested the Provincial
prescription through possession of ten years. Treasurer/Assessor to have the land declared in his
name. It was admitted by the parties during the pre-
ART. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over trial that this affidavit was the basis of the transfer of
immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted Tax Declaration No. 6686 from Emilio Restar to
adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without Flores Restar. So that from 1960 the land was
need of title or of good faith. declared in the name of Flores Restar (Exhibit 10).
This was the first concrete act of repudiation made by
Flores of the co-ownership over the land in question.
Resolving the main issue of whether petitioners
xxx
acquired ownership over the lot by extraordinary
prescription, the appellate court held in the negative.
Plaintiffs did not deny that aside from the verbal
partition of one parcel of land in Carugdog, Lezo,
While this Court is not a trier of facts, if the inference
Aklan way back in 1945, they also had an amicable
drawn by the appellate court from the facts is
partition of the lands of Emilio Restar in Cerrudo and
manifestly mistaken, it may, in the interest of justice,
Palale, Banga Aklan on September 28, 1973 (exhibit
review the evidence in order to arrive at the correct
"20"). If they were able to demand the partition, why
factual conclusions based on the record.23
then did they not demand the inclusion of the land in
question in order to settle once and for all the
Contrary to the findings of the appellate court, the inheritance from their father Emilio Restar,
records of the case amply support petitioners’ claim considering that at that time all of the brothers and
that the requirements for extraordinary prescription sisters, the eight heirs of Emilio Restar, were still alive
had been duly met. and participated in the signing of the extra-judicial
partition?
When Restar died in 1935, his eight children
became pro indiviso co-owners of the lot by intestate
Page 3 of 5
Heirs of Flores Restar vs Heirs Dolores Cichon
Also it was admitted that Flores died only in 1989. having ever contributed any share therein; and
Plaintiffs had all the chances (sic) to file a case continued enjoyment of the property and its produce
against him from 1960, or a period of 29 years when to the exclusion of respondents. And Flores’ adverse
he was still alive, yet they failed to do so. They filed possession was continued by his heirs.
the instant case only on January 22, 1999, almost ten
(10) years after Flores’ death. The appellate court’s crediting of respondents’
justification for failing to immediately take legal action
From the foregoing evidence, it can be seen that the to protect their rights — forbearance toward Flores
adverse possession of Flores started in 1960, the and/or his wife who asked to be allowed to cultivate
time when the tax declaration was transferred in his the land to support their children’s education — does
name. The period of acquisitive prescription started to not impress. For assuming such justification to be
run from this date. Hence, the adverse possession of true, why did not any of respondents assail Flores’
Flores Restar from 1960 vested in him exclusive continuous possession after his children completed
ownership of the land considering the lapse of more their college education in 1977?
than 38 years. Acquisitive prescription of ownership,
laches and prescription of the action for partition The trial court’s finding and conclusion that Flores and
should be considered in favor of Flores Restar and his his heirs had for more than 38 years possessed the
heirs. 25 land in open, adverse and continuous possession in
the concept of owner − which length of possession
While tax declarations and receipts are not conclusive had never been questioned, rebutted or disputed by
evidence of ownership and do not prove title to the any of respondents, being thus duly supported by
land, nevertheless, when coupled with actual substantial evidence, he and his heirs have become
possession, they constitute evidence of great owner of the lot by extraordinary prescription. It is
weight26 and can be the basis of a claim of ownership unfortunate that respondents slept on their
through prescription.27 rights. Dura lex sed lex.

As for respondents’ claim that they have been WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED. The
receiving shares from the produce of the land, it was decision of the Court of Appeals
correctly discredited by the trial court. is REVERSED and SET ASIDE and the June 30,
1999 decision of the trial court is REINSTATED.
[P]laintiffs’ claim that Flores Restar gave them five to
eight gantas each as their shares in the produce No pronouncement as to costs.
cannot be sustained. A few gantas cannot be
considered one-eight share of sixty (60) cavans of SO ORDERED.
palay produced per cropping. One eight of sixty
cavans would be at least six cavans, not merely CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
gantas after excluding expenses for cultivation and
production. If plaintiffs were to be believed, their
Associate Justice
whole 7/8 share of the produce would total two
cavans, six gantas only at the usual rate of 25 gantas
per cavan.28 WE CONCUR:

Unless there are strong and impelling reasons to ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN


disturb the trial court’s findings of facts which must, as
a matter of judicial policy, be accorded with the Associate Justice
highest respect, they must remain. Respondents have
not, however, proffered any reason warranting the Chairman
disturbance of the trial court’s findings of facts.
(ON LEAVE) RENATO C. CORONA
Indeed, the following acts of Flores show possession
adverse to his co-heirs: the cancellation of the tax ANGELINA SANDOVAL- Associate Justice
declaration certificate in the name of Restar and GUTIERREZ
securing another in his name; the execution of a Joint
Affidavit stating that he is the owner and possessor Associate Justice
thereof to the exclusion of respondents; payment of
real estate tax and irrigation fees without respondents
Page 4 of 5
Heirs of Flores Restar vs Heirs Dolores Cichon
10
CANCIO C. GARCIA Records at 19-21.

11
Associate Justice Id. at 128-130.

12
ATTESTATION Exhibit "1" - Policarpio Restar
, vide Records at 131-132 (the List of Exhibits
I attest that the conclusions in the above Decision prepared by the RTC Clerk of Court identifies
were reached in consultation before the case was the deed as such Exhibit "1" but the deed on
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s pages 131-132 bears no such marking.
Division.
13
Records at 129.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
14
RTC Decision, Records at 161-171.
Associate Justice
15
Chairman Records at 170. The records disclose,
however, that Esmenia Restar signed as
CERTIFICATION "Esmenia" in the deed of sale whereas she
always signed as "Esmeña."
Pursuant to Article VIII, Section 13 of the Constitution,
16
and the Division Chairman’s Attestation, it is hereby Records at 161-171.
certified that the conclusions in the above Decision
17
were reached in consultation before the case was CA Rollo at 158-165.
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
18
Id at 163.
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
19
Ibid.
Chief Justice
20
Rollo at 17.

21
Bargayo v. Camumot, 40 Phil 857, 868
(1920).
Footnotes
22
Heirs of Segunda Maningding v. Court of
1
Records at 8. Appeals, 276 SCRA 601, 608 (1997).

23
2
Id. at 7. Ferrer v. Court of Appeals, 219 SCRA 302,
305 (1993).
3
As eventually determined by court appointed
24
Commissioner Crispulo M. Vega, Id. at 100- De Jesus v. Court of Appeals, 217 SCRA
102. 307, 321 (1993).

25
4
Id. at 9. Records at 168-169.

26
5
Id. at 1-6. Heirs of Segunda Maningding v. Court of
Appeals, 276 SCRA 601, 606 (1997).
6
Id. at 31-36.
27
Cequeña v. Bolante, 330 SCRA 216, 226-
7
Id at 32-33. 227 (2000).

28
8
Ibid. Records at 170.

9
Exhibits Folder – Exhibit 20.

Page 5 of 5

Вам также может понравиться