Ining v Vega (Succession)

Ining v Vega
GR No. 174727, August 12, 2013

ANTIPOLO INING (DECEASED), SURVIVED BY MANUEL VILLANUEVA, TEODORA VILLANUEVA-FRANCISCO, CAMILO
FRANCISCO, ADOLFO FRANCISCO, LUCIMO FRANCISCO, JR., MILAGROS FRANCISCO,* CELEDONIO FRANCISCO, HERMINIGILDO FRANCISCO; RAMON TRESVALLES, ROBERTO TAJONERA, NATIVIDAD INING-IBEA (DECEASED) SURVIVED BY EDILBERTO IBEA, JOSEFA IBEA, MARTHA IBEA, CARMEN IBEA, AMPARO IBEA- FERNANDEZ, HENRY RUIZ, EUGENIO RUIZ AND PASTOR RUIZ; DOLORES INING-RIMON (DECEASED) SURVIVED BY JESUS RIMON, CESARIA RIMON GONZALES AND REMEDIOS RIMON CORDERO; AND PEDRO INING (DECEASED) SURVIVED BY ELISA TAN INING (WIFE) AND PEDRO INING, JR., Petitioners, v. LEONARDO R. VEGA, SUBSTITUTED BY LOURDES VEGA, RESTONILO I. VEGA, CRISPULO M. VEGA, MILBUENA VEGA-RESTITUTO, AND LENARD VEGA, Respondents.

FACTS:

Leon Roldan (Leon), married to Rafaela Menez (Rafaela), is the owner of a 3,120-square meter parcel of land (subject property) in Kalibo, Aklan. Leon and Rafaela died without issue. Leon was survived by his siblings Romana Roldan (Romana) and Gregoria Roldan Ining (Gregoria), who are now both deceased.
Sibling #1: Romana was survived by her daughter Anunciacion Vega and grandson, herein respondent Leonardo R. Vega (Leonardo) (also both deceased). Leonardo in turn is survived by his wife Lourdes and children Restonilo I. Vega, Crispulo M. Vega, Milbuena Vega-Restituto and Lenard Vega, the substituted respondents.
Sibling # 2: Gregoria, on the other hand, was survived by her six children. In short, herein petitioners, except for Ramon Tresvalles (Tresvalles) and Roberto Tajonera (Tajonera), are Gregoria’s grandchildren or spouses thereof (Gregoria’s heirs). Tresvalles and Tajonera are transferees of the said property.
In 1997, acting on the claim that one-half of subject property belonged to him as Romana’s surviving heir, Leonardo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Kalibo, Aklan Civil Case No. 5275 for partition, recovery of ownership and possession, with damages, against Gregoria’s heirs.
In their Answer with counterclaim, Gregoria’s heirs (through son Antipolo) claimed that Leonardo had no cause of action against them; that they have become the sole owners of the subject property through Lucimo Sr. who acquired the same in good faith by sale from Juan Enriquez (Enriquez), who in turn acquired the same from Leon, and Leonardo was aware of this fact.

ISSUES BEFORE LOWER COURTS:

1. Whether Leonardo is entitled to a share in Leon’s estate;
2. Whether Leon sold the subject property to Lucimo Sr.; and
3. Whether Leonardo’s claim has prescribed, or that he is barred by estoppel or laches.

DECISION OF LOWER COURTS:
(1) RTC –
1. No. Declared lot to be the common property of the heirs of Gregoria Roldan Ining
2. Concluded that Leon never sold the property to Enriquez, and in turn, Enriquez never sold the property to Lucimo Sr., hence, the subject property remained part of Leon’s estate at the time of his death in 1962.
3. Dismissing the complaint on the ground of prescription (30 years adverse possession).
(2) CA:
1. Declaring 1/2 portion of Lot 1786 as the share of the plaintiffs as successors-in-interest of Romana Roldan; Declaring 1/2 portion of Lot 1786 as the share of the defendants as successors-in-interest of Gregoria Roldan Ining;

2. Trial court’s declaration of nullity of the April 4, 1943 and November 25, 1943 deeds of sale in favor of Enriquez and Lucimo Sr., respectively, became final and was settled by petitioners’ failure to appeal the same.
3. There was no prescription. Prescription began to run not from Leon’s death in 1962, but from Lucimo Sr.’s execution of the Affidavit of Ownership of Land in 1979, which amounted to a repudiation of his co-ownership of the property with Leonardo. Applying the fifth paragraph of Article 494 of the Civil Code, which provides that “[n]o prescription shall run in favor of a co- owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership,”

ISSUES: 
I
THE APPELLATE COURT COMMITTED GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION IN REVERSING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT ON THE GROUND THAT LUCIMO FRANCISCO REPUDIATED THE CO-OWNERSHIP ONLY ON FEBRUARY 9, 1979.
II
THE APPELLATE COURT ERRED IN NOT UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE TRIAL COURT DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT ON THE GROUND OF PRESCRIPTION AND LACHES.

RULING:
No, the Court of Appeals is correct based on the following reasons:
1. The finding that Leon did not sell the property to Lucimo Sr. had long been settled and had become final for failure of petitioners to appeal. Thus, the property remained part of Leon’s estate.
2. Leon died without issue; his heirs are his siblings Romana and Gregoria.
3. Gregoria’s and Romana’s heirs are co-owners of the subject property. no prescription shall run in favor of one of the co-heirs against the others so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.
4. For prescription to set in, the repudiation must be done by a co-owner. The CA held that prescription began to run against Leonardo only in 1979 – or even in 1980 – when it has been made sufficiently clear to him that Lucimo Sr. has renounced the co-ownership and has claimed sole ownership over the property. The CA thus concluded that the filing of Civil Case No. 5275 in 1997, or just under 20 years counted from 1979, is clearly within the period prescribed under Article 1141.
Lucimo Sr. is not a co-owner of the property. Indeed, he is not an heir of Gregoria; he is merely Antipolo’s son-in-law, being married to Antipolo’s daughter Teodora.
One who is merely related by affinity to the decedent does not inherit from the latter and cannot become a co-owner of the decedent’s property. Consequently, he cannot effect a repudiation of the co-ownership of the estate that was formed among the decedent’s heirs.

OTHER NOTES:
1. Possession by a co-owner will not be presumed to be adverse to the other co- owners but will be held to benefit all, and that a co-owner or co-heir is in possession of an inheritance pro-indiviso for himself and in representation of his co-owners or co- heirs if he administers or takes care of the rest thereof with the obligation to deliver the same to his co- owners or co-heirs, as is the case of a depositary, lessee or trustee.
2. Principle of laches cannot apply as against Leonardo and the respondents. It held that laches is controlled by equitable considerations and it cannot be used to defeat justice or to perpetuate fraud; it cannot be utilized to deprive the respondents of their rightful inheritance.
3. “A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent any clear repudiation of the co- ownership. In order that the title may prescribe in favor of a co-owner, the following requisites must concur:
(1) the co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners;
(2) such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owners; and

(3) the evidence thereof is clear and convincing.”

4. Under the Family Code, family relations, which is the primary basis for succession, exclude relations by affinity.

Art. 150. Family relations include those:
(1) Between husband and wife;chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary
(2) Between parents and children;chanr0blesvirtualawlibrary 
(3) Among other ascendants and descendants; and
(4) Among brothers and sisters, whether of the full or half blood.

In fine, since none of the co-owners made a valid repudiation of the existing co-ownership, Leonardo could seek partition of the property at any time.