Castrillo v CA (Obligations and Contracts)

Castrillo v CA 

GR No. L-18046 

March 31, 1964  

FACTS: 

(1) Lot No. 188 of the Biñan  Laguna)  state subdivision, with an area of 90 sq meters, as acquired by Crispina Miranda from the Government in 1917. Transfer Certificate of Title No. 2068 of the office of the Register of Deeds for Laguna was issued in her name. In 1924 she executed an affidavit (Exh. A) affirming that the lot was not hers alone but belonged in common to her and her two sisters, Telesfora and Isabel Miranda. Isabel had her house on the northern part of the property; Crispina bad hers in the center; and Telesfora, who had no house, lived alternately with the other two. 

(2) In 1929 Crispina sold a portion of the lot, with an area of 85 square meters, to the spouses Aquilino Almoro and Marcela Alzona. In 1932 Isabel sold her share, with the house erected on it, to Doroteo Dimaranan, respondent here (Exh. B). 

(3) In 1934 Crispina executed a document entitled "escritura de venta absoluta" (Exh. C), stating that she was the owner of lot No. 188 and selling two portions thereof: one, containing 252 square meters, to Isabel Miranda for P600.00; and another, containing 86 square meters, to the spouses Almoro and Alzona for P200.00. According to the trial court, that document was evidently intended to ratify and confirm Isabel's rights and interest as well as the previous sale to the said spouses. 

(4) In September, 1955 the heirs of Crispina Miranda, Paulino and Felicisima Castrillo, now petitioners, signed a deed of partition of that portion of lot No. 188, (containing 505 square meters) still registered in the said decedent's name. As a result transfer certificate of title No. 8418 was cancelled and in lieu thereof certificate No. 9178 (Laguna) was issued, with the two petitioners appearing as owners of 252-1/2 square meters each and the Garcias - mother and son - of 85 square meters. 

(5) On March 14, 1956 Doroteo Dimaranan and his wife commenced the present action to have themselves declared as owners pro-indiviso of 1/3 share of lot No. 188, or 196-2/3 square meters; to compel the defendants, the Castrillos and the Garcias, to execute the corresponding deed of conveyance in their favor; to obtain the cancellation of the existing certificate of title and the issuance of a new one with their names entered therein; and to recover damages.  

Applicable Laws: 

(1)  Art. 1434. When a person who is not the owner of a thing sells or alienates and delivers it, and later the seller or grantor acquires title thereto, such title passes by operation of law to the buyer or grantee.  

RTC: The Dimaranans are rightful owners of 1/3 of Lot 188.  

CA: Affirmed decision of the RTC.  

ISSUE: WON the action was barred by the statute of limitations.  

HELD: No.  

RATIO: 

(1) When respondent Doroteo Dimaranan acquired Isabel Miranda's 1/3 share in 1932 (Exh. B) he substituted her in the co-ownership.  When Crispina Miranda executed the affidavit marked Exhibit A in 1929, affirming the fact that lot No. 188 was owned not only by her but also by her two sisters, she recognized the existence of a co-ownership between them. It did not matter that the certificate of title was in Crispina's name alone. Co-ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others. Thus, as a general rule, no one of them may acquire exclusive ownership of the common property through prescription, for possession by one trustee alone is not deemed adverse to the rest. 

(2) After the death of Crispina Miranda in 1935, her heirs the Castrillos, petitioners here acquired no right greater than what their predecessor had and certainly none in derogation of those of the other co-owners. The latter did not have to resort to court action to make their rights effective: they were in possession of their respective shares and as far as the certificate of title in Crispina's name was concerned, it was impressed with a fiduciary character even in the hands of herein petitioners, they being her heirs and privies and not third persons within the meaning of the law. 

(3) It was only when petitioners executed a deed of partition in 1995 that the statute of limitations started to run for purposes of the action instituted by him and by his wife for a declaration of the existence of the co-ownership and of their rights  hereunder.