You are on page 1of 2

Heirs of Feliciano Yambao v Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao

Facts:
 Subject parcel of land originally possessed by Macaria. Hermogenes, Macaria’s nephew,
acted as administrator and paid realty taxes therefor.
 Hermogenes has eight children, Ulpiano and Feliciano.
 All of his heirs were free to enjoy the fruits from the subject property, Ulpiano’s child
was even allowed to construct a house on the property.
 In 2005, heirs of Feliciano ejected Eleanor claiming that their father was in possession of
the subject property in the concept of an owner since time immemorial.
 Feliciano was awarded a free patent and was issued an OCT which was issued Nov 1989.
Action of Hermogenes prescribed na daw after one year.

Ruling:
 Feliciano’s free patent application indicated that he merely tacked his possession of the
subject property from Hermogenes, his father, who held the property in peaceful, open,
continuous, and adverse manner in the concept of an owner since 1944.
 This is an implicit recognition of the fact that Feliciano merely co-owns the subject
property with the other heirs of Hermogenes.
 The heirs of Feliciano have not presented any evidence that would show that Hermogenes
bequeathed the subject property solely to Feliciano.
 Mere actual possession by one will not give rise to the inference that the possession was
adverse because a co-owner is, after all, entitled to possession of the property.
 As a rule, prescription does not run in favor of a coheir or co-owner as long as he
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership

Prescription may nevertheless run against a co-owner if there is adverse, open, continuous and
exclusive possession of the co-owned property by the other co-owner/s:
1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que
trust or other co-owners;
(2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or other
co-owners; and
(3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.
Although OCT No. P-10737 was registered in the name of Feliciano on November 29, 1989, the
prescriptive period within which to demand partition of the subject property, contrary to the
claim of the heirs of Feliciano, did not begin to run. At that time, the heirs of Hermogenes were
still in possession of the property. 10 year prescriptive period for partition only runs when
plaintiff is not in possession of the property.