4- PANGAN V CA G.R. No. L-3 L-39 9299
October 18 18, 19 1988
An application for registration of a parcel of land of 63 s!"are #eters $as #ade b% petitioners for being in possession of t&e sa#e since 189. '&is $as appro(ed b% t&e co"rt, since t&ere $as no no opposition, on )arc& 31, 1966. *o$e(er, on +"ne 8, respondent 'eodora filed a petition to set aside t&e decision, alleging t&at t&e land $as in&erited b% Leon *ilarios t&ree c&ildren, b"t t&e son, elicisi#o, $ai(ed &is rig&t t&ereto and and t&ereb% #ade &is t$o sisters, il(estra and /atalina, its e0cl"si(e co-o$ners. As /atalinas da"g&ter, s&e $as entitled to one-&alf of t&e propert%, t&e ot&er &alf going to il(estras &eirs, t&e petitioners petitioners &erein and t&e latters grandc&ildren. '&e trial "dge &o$e(er dis#issed &er petition on t&e gro"nd t&at $&ate(er rig&ts 'eodora &ad &ad been forfeited "nder e0tincti(e e0tincti(e prescription beca"se s&e &ad left t&e land since 192 and &ad not since asserted an% clai# t&ereto. On appeal, t&e decision $as re(ersed and t&e /A r"led t&at petitioners failed to pro(e t&eir ac!"isition t&ro"g& prescription and t&at 'eodora $as entitled to &alf of t&e propert%. ss"e4 5id petitioners &old t&e land in tr"st for 'eodora t&at $o"ld negate t&eir assertion t&at s&e &ad lost &er rig&t t&o"g& e0tincti(e prescription 5id 'eodora7s fail"re to assert &er clai# of o$ners&ip allo$ t&e stat"tor% period to lapse $&ic& enabled petitioners to ac!"ire o$ners&ip t&ro"g& ac!"isiti(e possession
R"ling4 1-es, t&e% did. etitioners possession $as not for t&eir benefit alone b"t also in fa(or of 'eodora, $&o $as a co-&eir $it& t&e# and t&erefore also a co-o$ner co-o$ner of t&e propert%. n ot&er $ords, t&eir possession, possession, $&ile ad(erse to t&e rest of t&e $orld, $as not against 'eodora &erself, whose &erself, whose share they held in implied trust for her as a co-owner of the land , and $&ose fr"its t&eir fat&er s&ared $it& &er occasionall%, or at least pro#ised &er s&e $o"ld get e(ent"all%. '&e /o"rt belie(es t&at t&is, too, is not an arbitrar% concl"sion.
2if t&e co-o$ner act"all% &olding t&e propert% asserts e0cl"si(e do#inion o(er it against t&e ot&er coo$ners, t&e corollar% of t&e r"le is t&at &e can ac!"ire sole title to it after t&e lapse of t&e prescribed prescripti(e period.
or title to prescribe in fa(or of t&e co-o$ner, &o$e(er, t&ere #"st be a clear s&o$ing t&at &e &as rep"diated t&e clai#s of t&e ot&er co-o$ners and t&at t&e% &a(e been categoricall% ad(ised of t&e e0cl"si(e clai# &e is #a:ing to t&e propert% in !"estion. t is onl% $&en s"c& "ne!"i(ocal notice &as been gi(en t&at t&e period of prescription $ill begin to r"n against t&e ot&er co-o$ners and "lti#atel% di(est t&e# of t&eir o$n title if t&e% do not seasonabl% defend it. '&ere is clear rep"diation of a tr"st $&en one $&o is an apparent ad#inistrator of propert% ca"ses t&e cancellation of t&e title t&ereto in t&e na#e of t&e apparent beneficiaries and gets a ne$ certificate of title in &is o$n na#e. "c& as in t&is case. *O;<=
There was no adequate notice by the petitioners to the private respondent of the reection of her claim to her share in the subect property! Noticeabl% absent &ere is a categorical assertion b% t&e petitioners of t&eir e0cl"si(e rig&t to t&e entire propert% t&at barred &er o$n clai# of o$ners&ip of one-&alf t&ereof nor is t&ere an% e0planation as to $&% t&e% said s&e &ad no rig&t to a s&are. f t&is tr"sting $o#an did not i##ediatel% ta:e legal action to protect &er rig&ts, it $as si#pl% beca"se of forbearance to$ard &er nep&e$s and nieces, let alone t&e fact t&at t&ere $as reall% no cases belli as %et t&at re!"ired &er to act decisi(el%. '&at legal pro(ocation arose onl% $&en t&e petitioners co##enced t&e registration proceedings in 196, and it $as fro# t&at ti#e s&e $as re!"ired to act, as s&e did, to protect &er interests.
