G.R. No. 83885 , December 29, 1989
SPS. NICANOR A. CATRAL and LOURDES TEANO CATRAL, Substituted by Their Heirs, petitioners, vs. THE COURT OF APPEALS, PAULA DICHOSO, et al., respondents.

FACTS

The dispute involves a 3-hectare northern portion of a larger parcel originally owned by Sebastian Dichoso. Upon his death, his children Mateo, Paula, and Maxima became co-owners. On April 27, 1951, Mateo, with his sisters’ consent, sold the eastern third of the property to petitioner Nicanor Catral for P250.00, evidenced by a private writing. After a redivision among the co-owners on February 29, 1956, Mateo’s share was adjusted to the northern portion. Consequently, Mateo executed a notarized Escritura de Compraventa (Deed of Sale) conveying the northern third to Catral, confirming the prior sale. Catral took possession, declared the land in his name, paid taxes, and cultivated it until December 27, 1957, when respondents, after Mateo’s death, forcibly dispossessed him.
The trial court and the Court of Appeals dismissed Catral’s complaint for recovery of ownership, ruling that respondent Paula Dichoso acquired sole ownership through acquisitive prescription. The courts found that Paula allegedly acquired the property from another sibling, Domina, in 1924, and had possessed it since. Petitioners elevated the case via certiorari.

ISSUE

The sole issue is who has the better title to the disputed property.

RULING

The Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision, ruling in favor of petitioners. The legal logic centers on the validity of the deed of sale and the imprescriptibility of co-ownership. The notarized Escritura de Compraventa is a public document that conclusively evidences the sale from co-owner Mateo to Catral. This document, coupled with Catral’s immediate possession and tax payments, establishes a superior claim. In contrast, respondents’ claim of ownership derived from an unprobated holographic will (executed in 1917 when such wills were invalid under Act No. 190 ) and an alleged 1924 sale from Domina is unsupported by any documentary proof.
Critically, the property remained under the tax name of Sebastian Dichoso, with Paula and Maxima listed merely as administrators, indicating co-ownership. Paula and Maxima’s express conformity to Mateo’s initial 1951 sale is a clear recognition of the co-ownership. Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no prescription runs between co-owners as long as the co-ownership is recognized. Respondents’ possession, even if long, cannot ripen into ownership against their co-heirs. Their act of consenting to the sale and only claiming exclusive ownership after Mateo’s death undermines their claim. Therefore, petitioners are declared absolute owners and entitled to possession.