[ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION-POSSESSION BY CO-OWNER] ● Possession of a co-owner shall not be regarded as adverse to the

24 CAPITLE V. DE GABAN other co-owners but in fact as beneficial to all of them

June 8, 2004 | Carpio-Morales, J. |

○ Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of
the common property and that this implies that an action
Doctrine: Insert doctrine here
to demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred
by laches

Facts:
○ Right of action to demand partition does not prescribe,
● Fabian Correjado inherited two parcels of land from his father HOWEVER, acquisitive prescription may set in where one
Santos Correjado (Hinigaran Cadastre and Pontevedra Cadastre).
of the co-owners openly and adversely occupies the
○ He died intestate and was survived by 4 children: Julian, property without recognizing the co-ownership.

Francisco and 2 others

● After Fabian’s death, Julian occupied and cultivated the two ● Elements constituting adverse possession by co-owner against
parcels of land until his death and he was survived by 3 children: another co-owner:

de Gaban and others (RESPONDENTS).

○ (i) He has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation
○ Zacarias, Julian’s brother, died and was survived by his amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-
heirs: Capitle and others (PETITIONERS)
owners;

● November 26, 1986: Capitle filed a complaint for the partition of ○ (ii) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made
the property alleging that Fabian contracted 2 marriages
known to the cestui que trust or the other co- owners;
○ First: Brigida Salenda (mother of Julian – Respondents)
and

○ Second: Maria Catahay (mother of Zacarias – Petitioners)

○ (iii) that the evidence thereon must be clear and
○ And that de Gaban refused to deliver Capitle’s share convincing

despite their demand

● De Gaban’s answer: in the intestate proceedings of Santos, Capitle
were not adjudicated any share in the property since Maria was
just a mistress of Fabian and therefore Capitle’s ascendants were
illegitimate and not entitled to inherit under the old Civil Code
Gaban had performed unequivocal acts of repudiation.:
● Granting that Capitle, as well as their predecessors-in-interest,
were initially co-owners of the disputed property, nevertheless,
acquisitive prescription in favor of de Gaban had already set in. de

○ Introduced improvements on property

RTC: Dismissed complaint upon grounds of prescription and laches

○ Paid realty taxes as exclusive owners

CA: AFFIRMED RTC

● Capitle admitted that after Julian’s death, de Gaban arrogated unto
• Presumption of lawful marriage between Maria and Santos, hence themselves the use and enjoyment of the disputed property, to the
both petitioners and respondents are presumed legitimate hence exclusion of appellants. “Art. 1137 applies in this case, where
Capitle and de Gaban are co-owners.
ownership though uninterrupted adverse possession prescribes in
• However, action is barred by prescription and laches.
30 years. Due to this, the Capitle may no longer ask for partition
since the only legal question resolved in the case is the ownership
Issue:
in favor of Julian’s heirs. Capitle cannot claim that they were
W/N laches is applicable in the case at bar? – No, but acquisitive “deprived” of enjoyment of the property that they never “enjoyed”
prescription does so de Gaban has acquired property
in the first place.”

Held: Dispositive
NO. Elements constituting adverse possession by co-owner is present WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and the decision of the
and therefore acquisitive prescription applies. Court of Appeals is AFFIRMED.