Bar Q and A #19

1.) Mr. R is the registered owner of a parcel of land located in Cebu City covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 1234 issued in 1955. Since his acquisition of the lot, Mr. R and his family had been in continuous, open, and peaceful possession thereof. Mr. R died in 1980, resulting in the land being transferred in the names of his heirs, i.e., A, B, and C, who became registered owners thereof as per TCT No. 5678. During the entire time, said land had never been encumbered or disposed, and that its possession always remained with them. Sometime in 1999, A, B, and C wanted to build a concrete fence around the parcel of land, but they were opposed by Mrs. X, who started claiming ownership over the same property on the strength of a Deed of Absolute Sale purportedly entered into by her with Mr. R during the time that he was still alive. Aggrieved, A, B, and C intend to file a complaint for quieting of title against Mrs. X. A. What are the substantive requisites for the action to prosper? Do they obtain in this case? Explain. B. Within what period should A, B, and C tile the complaint for quieting of title? Explain. C. Assuming that Band Care residing abroad, may A, without the knowledge of B and C, file the complaint for quieting of title on behalf of all the heirs? Explain.

a. For an action to quiet title to prosper, it has the following requisites: (1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of the action; and (2) the instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

The requisites for an action to quiet the title obtain in this case, since A, B, and Care the registered owners of the parcel of land, having inherited the same from their father Mr. R, and the Deed of Absolute Sale, which cast a cloud on their title may be shown to be invalid or inoperative.

b. The action for quieting of title does not prescribe, because the plaintiff are in possession of the land.

c. Yes, A may file the complaint, provided that he files the same for the co-ownership. Anyone of the co-owners may bring such an action in ejectment, even without joining all the other co-owners as co-plaintiffs, because the suit is deemed to be instituted for the benefit of all, assuming A wins the case. Parenthetically, if A loses in the action to quiet title, it will if not affect B and C, because the Court did not acquire jurisdiction over their persons. The Court further held that if the action is for the benefit of the plaintiff alone, such that he claims the possession for himself and not for the co-ownership, the action will not prosper.

2.) A, B and C are the co-owners in equal shares of a residential house and lot. During their co-ownership, the following acts were respectively done by the co- owners: 1. A undertook the repair of the foundation of the house, then tilting to one side, to prevent the house from collapsing. 2. B and C mortgaged the house and lot to secure a loan. 3. B engaged a contractor to build a concrete fence all around the lot. 4. C built a beautiful grotto in the garden. 5. A and C sold the land to X for a very good price. a) Is A’s sole decision to repair the foundation of the house binding on B and C? May A require B and C to contribute their 2/3 share of the expense? Reasons. b) What is the legal effect f the mortgage contract executed by B and C? Reasons. c) Is B’s sole decision to build the fence binding upon A and C? May B require A and C to contribute their 2/3 share of the expense? Reasons. d) Is C’s sole decision to build the grotto binding upon A and B? May C require A and B to contribute their 2/3 share of the expense? Reasons. e) What are the legal effects of the contract of sale executed by A, C and X? Reasons.

Yes. A’s sole decision to repair the foundation is binding upon B and B and C must contribute 2/3 of the expense. Each co-owner has the right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expense of preservation of the thing (the house) owned in common in proportion to their respective interests. (Arts. 485 and 488, Civil Code)
The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and interest of A and shall be deemed to cover only the rights and interests of B and C in the house and The mortgage shall be limited to the portion (2/3) which may be allotted to B and C in the partition. (Art. 493, Civil Code)
B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence is not binding upon A and Expenses to improve the thing owned in common must be decided upon by a majority of the co-owners who represent the controlling interest. (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code)
C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not binding upon A and B who cannot be required to contribute to the expenses for the embellishment of the thing owned in common if not decided upon by the majority of the co-owners who represent the controlling (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code)
The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B and shall be deemed to cover only the 2/3 share of A and C in the land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the right to redeem the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C since X is a third person. ( 1620, Civil Code)

3.) Juan and his sister Juana inherited from their mother two parcels of farmland with exactly the same areas. For convenience, the Torrens certificates of title covering both lots were placed in Juan’s name alone. In 1996, Juan sold to an innocent purchaser one parcel in its entirety without the knowledge and consent of Juana, and wrongfully kept for himself the entire price paid. Since the two lots have the same area, suppose Juana files a complaint to have herself declared sole owner of the entire remaining second lot, contending that her brother had forfeited his share thereof by wrongfully disposing of her undivided share in the first lot, will the suit prosper?

Juana’s suit to have herself declared as sole owner of the entire remaining area will not prosper because while Juan’s act in selling the other lot was wrongful, it did not have the legal effect of forfeiting his share in the remaining lot. However, Juana can file an action against Juan for partition or termination of the co-ownership with a prayer that the lot sold be adjudicated to Juan, and the remaining lot be adjudicated and reconveyed to her.

4.) In 1955, Ramon and his sister Rosario inherited a parcel of land in Albay from their parents. Since Rosario was gainfully employed in Manila, she left Ramon alone to process and cultivate the land. However, Ramon never shared the harvest with Rosario and was even able to sell one- half of the land in 1985 by claiming to be the sole heir of his parents. Having reached retirement age in 1990, Rosario returned to the province and upon learning what had transpired, demanded that the remaining half of the land be giver to her as her share. Ramon opposed, asserting that he has already acquired ownership of the land by prescription, and that Rosario is barred by laches from demanding partition and reconveyance. Decide the conflicting claims.

Ramon is wrong on both counts: prescription and laches. His possession as co-owner did not give rise to acquisitive prescription. Possession by a co-owner is deemed not adverse to the other co-owners but is, on the contrary, deemed beneficial to them. (Pangan v. CA 166 SCRA 375) Ramon’s possession will become adverse only when he has repudiated the co-ownership and such repudiation was made known to Rosario. Assuming that the sale in 1985 where Ramon claimed he was the sole heir of his parents amounted to repudiation of the co-ownership; the prescriptive period began to run only from that time. Not more than 30 years having lapsed since then, the claim of Rosario has not yet prescribed. The claim of laches is not also meritorious. Until the repudiation of the co-ownership was made known to the other co-owners, no right has been violated for the said co-owners, no right has been violated for the said co-owners to vindicate. Mere delay in vindicating the right, standing alone, does not constitute laches.

5.) Senen and Peter are brothers. Senen migrated to Canada early while still a teenager. Peter stayed in Bulacan to take care of their widowed mother and continued to work on the Family farm even after her death. Returning to the country some thirty years after he had left, Senen seeks a partition of the farm to get his share as the only co-heir of Peter. Peter interposes his opposition, contending that acquisitive prescription has already set in and that estoppel lies to bar the action for partition, citing his continuous possession of the property for at least 10 years, for almost 30 years in fact. It is undisputed that Peter has never openly claimed sole ownership of the property. If he ever had the intention to do so, Senen was completely ignorant of it. Will Senen’s action prosper? Explain.

Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the New Civil Code provides that “no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership nor notified Senen of his having repudiated the same.”

6.) Anthony bought a piece of untitled agricultural land from Bert. Bert, in turn, acquired the property by forging Carlo's signature in a deed of sale over the property. Carlo had been in possession of the property for 8 years, declared it for tax purposes, and religiously paid all taxes due on the property. Anthony is not aware of the defect in Bert's title, but has been in actual physical possession of the property from the time he bought it from Bert, who had never been in possession of the property for one year. a. Can Anthony acquire ownership of the property by acquisitive prescription? How many more years does he have to possess it to acquire ownership? b. If Carlo is able to legally recover his property, can he require Anthony to account for all the fruits he has harvested from the property while in possession? c. If there are standing crops on the property when Carlo recovers possession, can Carlo appropriate them?

a. Yes, Anthony can acquire ownership of the property by ordinary prescription which requires just title and good faith (Art. 1117). There was just title because a deed of sale was issued in his favor even though it was forged, which in fact he was not aware of. He needs to possess the land in good faith and in the concept of an owner for a total of ten years in order to acquire ownership. Since Anthony possessed the land for only one year, he has not completed the ten-year period. Even if Anthony tacks the 8-year period of possession by Carlo who in the deed of sale is supposed to be his grantor or predecessor in interest (Art. 1138 (1)), the period is still short of ten years.

b. Anthony is a possessor in good faith. Anthony cannot be made to account for the fruits he gathered before he was served with summons. A possessor in good faith is entitled to the fruits received before the possession was legally interrupted by the service of summons (Art. 554). After Anthony was served with summons, he became a possessor in bad faith and a builder, planter, sower in bad faith. He can also be made to account for the fruits but he may deduct expenses or production gathering and preservation of the fruits (Art. 443).

c. The value of the standing crops must be prorated depending upon the period of possession and the period of growing and producing the fruits. Anthony is entitled to a part of the net harvest and a part of expenses of cultivation in proportion to his period of possession. Carlo may appropriate the respective parts subject to prorating the respective periods of possession. However, Carlos may allow Anthony to gather these growing fruits as an indemnity for the expenses of cultivation. If Anthony refuses to accept the concession, he shall lose the right to indemnity under Art. 443 (Art. 545 par. 3).

7.) The renunciation by a co-owner of his undivided share in the co-owned property in lieu of the performance of his obligation to contribute to taxes and expenses for the preservation of the property constitutes dacion en pago.

TRUE. Under the Civil Code, a co-owner may renounce his share in the co-owned property in lieu of paying for his share in the taxes and expenses for the preservation of the co-owned property. In effect, there is dacion en pago because the co-owner is discharging his monetary obligation by paying it with his non-monetary interest in the co-owned property. The fact that he is giving up his entire interest simply means that he is accepting the value of his interest as equivalent to his share in the taxes and expenses of preservation.

8.) Ambrosio died, leaving his three daughters, Belen, Rosario and Sylvia a hacienda which was mortgaged to the Philippine National Bank due to the failure of the daughters to pay the bank, the latter foreclosed the mortgage and the hacienda was sold to it as the highest bidder. Six months later, Sylvia won the grand prize at the lotto and used part of it to redeem the hacienda from the bank. Thereafter, she took possession of the hacienda and refused to share its fruits with her sisters, contending that it was owned exclusively by her, having bought it from the bank with her own money. Is she correct or not?

Sylvia is not correct. The 3 daughters are the co-owners of the hacienda being the only heirs of Ambrosio. When the property was foreclosed, the right of redemption belongs also to the 3 daughters. When Sylvia redeemed the entire property before the lapse of the redemption period, she also exercised the right of redemption of her co-owners on their behalf. As such, she is holding the shares of her two sisters in the property and all the fruits corresponding thereto, in trust for them. Redemption by one co- owner inures to the benefit of all. (Adille v. CA, G.R. No. L-44546, January 29, 1988) Sylvia, however, is entitled to be reimbursed the shares of her two sisters in the redemption price.

9.) Antonio, Bart, and Carlos are brothers. They purchased from their parents specific portions of a parcel of land as evidenced by three separate deeds of sale, each deed referring to a particular lot in metes and bounds. When the deeds were presented for registration, the Register of Deeds could not issue separate certificates of title due to the absence of a subdivision plan. The new title had to be issued, therefore, in the names of the brothers as co-owners of the entire property. The situation has not change up to now, but each of the brothers has been receiving rentals exclusively from the lot actually purchased by him. Antonio sells his lot to a third person, with notice to his brothers. To enable the buyer to secure a new title in his name, the deed of sale was made to refer to an undivided interest in the property of the seller (Antonio), with the metes and bound for the lot sold being stated. Bart and Carlos reacted by signifying their exercise of their right redemption as co-owners. Antonio, in his behalf and in behalf of his buyer, contend that they are no longer co-owners, although the title covering the property has remained in their names assuch. Mary Bart and Carlos still redeem the lot sold by Antonio? Explain.

No, they may not redeem because there was no co-ownership among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos to start with. Their parents already partitioned the land in selling separate portions to them. (Si v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122047, October 12, 2000)

10.) X, Y, Z are siblings who inherited a 10- storey building from their parents. They agreed in writing to maintain it as a co- owned property for leasing out and to divide the net profits among themselves equally for a period of 20 years. On the 8th year, X wanted to get out of the co- ownership so he could get his 1/3 share in the property. Y and Z refused, saying X is bound by their agreement to keep the co- ownership for 20 years. Are Y and Z correct? Explain.

Y and Z are partly correct. The law provides that none of the co-owners shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership and it is the right of a co-owner to ask for partition of the co-ownership anytime. One exception to the rule is if the co-owners agree to keep the thing undivided which period shall not exceed ten years. In this case, the agreement to keep the thing undivided shall be valid at the most for ten years. (Art. 494)

The requisites for an action to quiet the title obtain in this case, since A, B, and Care the registered owners of the parcel of land, having inherited the same from their father Mr. R, and the Deed of Absolute Sale, which cast a cloud on their title may be shown to be invalid or inoperative.

b. The action for quieting of title does not prescribe, because the plaintiff are in possession of the land.

The mortgage shall not bind the 1/3 right and interest of A and shall be deemed to cover only the rights and interests of B and C in the house and The mortgage shall be limited to the portion (2/3) which may be allotted to B and C in the partition. (Art. 493, Civil Code)

B’s sole decision to build the concrete fence is not binding upon A and Expenses to improve the thing owned in common must be decided upon by a majority of the co-owners who represent the controlling interest. (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code)

C’s sole decision to build the grotto is not binding upon A and B who cannot be required to contribute to the expenses for the embellishment of the thing owned in common if not decided upon by the majority of the co-owners who represent the controlling (Arts. 489 and 492, Civil Code)

The sale to X shall not bind the 1/3 share of B and shall be deemed to cover only the 2/3 share of A and C in the land (Art. 493, Civil Code). B shall have the right to redeem the 2/3 share sold to X by A and C since X is a third person. ( 1620, Civil Code)

Senen’s action will prosper. Article 494 of the New Civil Code provides that “no prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership nor notified Senen of his having repudiated the same.”

7.) The renunciation by a co-owner of his undivided share in the co-owned property in lieu of the performance of his obligation to contribute to taxes and expenses for the preservation of the property constitutes dacion en pago.

No, they may not redeem because there was no co-ownership among Antonio, Bart, and Carlos to start with. Their parents already partitioned the land in selling separate portions to them. (Si v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122047, October 12, 2000)