Spec Pro Class 2020

FACTS:

Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon jointly purchased Lot 627 on installment basis and they agreed, for convenience, to have the land registered in the name of Dabon. Since then, Jose Ceniza, Vicente Dabon, and their heirs have possessed their respective portions of the land and made their respective installment payments to the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu.

 

Thereafter, Jacinta Dabon and Restituto Ceniza, one of the children of the co-owners Jose and Vicente, subdivided the property in question into Lot 627 A, B & C. However, private respondents Magno, Vicenta, Teresita, Eugenia and Tomas all surnamed Dabon, children of co-owner Vicente refused to convey Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-C to the petitioners, children of co-owner Jose Ceniza. They claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Dabon, was the sole and exclusive owner of Lot 627, by purchase from the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu and that petitioners' right of action had already prescribed. Therefore, case was then filed at the Court of First Instance (now, RTC) where the trial court rendered judgment for the petitioners on the ground of the existence of co-ownership among the parties. However, said decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

 

ISSUES:

 

1. Whether there exists an implied trust between Vicente Dabon and Jose Ceniza.

 

2. Whether the registration of the title of the land in the name of one of the co-owners constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription.

 

RULING:

 

1. Yes. The registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in favor of his co-owner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452 of the Civil Code states: "If two or more persons agree to purchase property and by common consent the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each."

 

2. No. In Custodio v. Casiano, 9 SCRA 841, it has been ruled that:"Where title to land was issued in the name of a co-heir merely with the understanding that he would act as a trustee of his sisters, and there is no evidence that this trust relation had ever been repudiated by said trustee, it is held that a relation of co-ownership existed between such trustee and his sisters and the right of the successors-in-interest of said sisters to bring the present action for recovery of their shares therein against the successors-in-interest of said trustee cannot be barred by prescription, despite the lapse of 25 years from the date of registration of the land in the trustee's name."

 

Further, the Court has ruled in numerous cases involving fiduciary relations that, as a general rule, the trustee's possession is not adverse and therefore cannot ripen into a title by prescription. Adverse possession requires the concurrence of the following circumstances: a) that the trustee has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to the ouster of the cestuique trust; b) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestuique trust; and c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive.

 

Apparently, the foregoing is not present in this case. Hence, respondents cannot claim title to such property on account of acquisitive prescription.