G.R. No. 173192 ; April 14, 2008
ROSENDO BACALSO, ET AL., petitioners, vs. MAXIMO PADIGOS, ET AL., respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over Lot No. 3781, a parcel of land registered under Original Certificate of Title No. RO-2649 in the names of thirteen co-owners. Respondents, claiming to be heirs of several deceased co-owners, filed a complaint for quieting of title, declaration of nullity of documents, recovery of possession, and damages against petitioners Rosendo and Rodrigo Bacalso. Respondents alleged that the petitioners’ father, Alipio Bacalso, Sr., had no legal basis for securing tax declarations over the lot and that petitioners were unlawfully leasing portions of it.
Petitioners, in their defense, claimed that Alipio Bacalso, Sr. had purchased the shares of five co-owners through deeds of sale and had acquired the shares of the other co-owners through extraordinary acquisitive prescription, having possessed the lot openly and adversely since 1949. Respondents countered that the deeds of sale were spurious and that laches had set in. The complaint underwent several amendments to implead additional heirs of the registered co-owners as parties.

ISSUE

The core issues were: (1) whether the failure to implead all heirs of the registered co-owners was fatal to the complaint; and (2) whether petitioners had successfully proven ownership through purchase or acquisitive prescription.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. On the procedural issue, the Court held that the failure to implead every single heir was not fatal. The respondents who filed the suit were the real parties-in-interest as they sufficiently represented the interests of the co-ownership. The successive amendments to the complaint demonstrated a diligent effort to include the necessary parties, and the trial court acquired jurisdiction over the res, the lot itself.
On the substantive issue, the Court ruled that petitioners failed to prove their claim of ownership. The purported deeds of sale were correctly declared null and void for being spurious, as they were not notarized and the signatures of the alleged vendors were forged. Regarding acquisitive prescription, the Court emphasized that prescription does not run against registered land under the Torrens system. A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of another co-owner, absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership communicated to the other co-owners. Petitioners’ possession, even if long, was not shown to be in the concept of an owner to the exclusion of the respondents. Their act of leasing portions of the lot and paying realty taxes did not constitute the required clear and unequivocal repudiation of the co-ownership. Thus, the respondents, as co-owners, retained their rights to the property.