G.R. No. L-22571 May 25, 1973
JOSEFINA VALDEZ, et al., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. TEOFILA OLORGA, et al., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

The case involves an action for partition over Lot No. 18, originally purchased by spouses Federico Valdez, Sr. and Juanita Batul. Upon their deaths, their heirs included their children: Avelina Olorga (predeceased, represented by Renato Olorga), Elisa Valdez-Almonte (predeceased, represented by her children), Josefina Valdez, Federico Valdez, Jr., and Jaime Valdez. The property was never formally transferred to the spouses’ names. In 1948, to secure title, the heirs commissioned a relative to negotiate with the original owners. Gregorio Quicho, a lessee of a portion, advanced P2,200 for the purchase. For convenience in facilitating Quicho’s subsequent purchase of his leased portion, the deed of sale named only Federico Valdez, Jr. as the vendee, with the express understanding he would hold the property in trust for his siblings.
After Federico Valdez, Jr.’s death in 1960, his widow, defendant Teofila Olorga, sought to eject the other heirs from the lot. The plaintiffs, who had been in continuous possession of their respective portions, filed for partition. The trial court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring a co-ownership and ordering partition. The defendants appealed, primarily challenging the factual findings.

ISSUE

Whether the plaintiffs’ action for partition is barred by prescription, considering Federico Valdez, Jr. was the sole registered owner under the Torrens title.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment, ruling the action for partition was not barred by prescription. The legal logic rests on the nature of co-ownership and the fiduciary relationship arising from an implied trust. The established facts showed Federico Valdez, Jr. acquired the property through funds advanced by a third party, with the clear understanding he held it for the benefit of all heirs. This created an implied trust under Article 1451 of the Civil Code, where property is acquired through mistake or fraud, or when it is purchased with funds of another. As a trustee, his possession was not adverse to his co-heirs but in representation of the co-ownership.
Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no prescription runs between co-owners or co-heirs so long as the co-ownership is recognized. The Court emphasized that for acquisitive prescription to run against a co-owner, there must be a clear, conclusive, and unequivocal act of repudiation of the co-ownership made known to the other co-owners. The acts of repudiation must amount to an ouster. Here, Federico Valdez, Jr. never performed such acts during his lifetime; he never excluded his siblings from ownership or possession. The hostile claim commenced only after his death when his widow attempted to eject the plaintiffs. Therefore, the prescriptive period did not begin to run, and the action for partition remained viable. The Torrens title in Federico Valdez, Jr.’s name did not bar the claim, as it was held in trust for the benefit of all co-owners.