PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021

CASE TITLE Concepcion Roque, petitioner, vs. Hon. Intermediate Appellate G.R. NO. 75886
Court, Ernesto Roque, Filomena Osmundo, Cecilia Roque,
Marcela Roque, Jose Roque and Ruben Roque, respondents.
PONENTE Feliciano, J: DATE August 30, 1998

DOCTRINE Extinguishment of Ownership - Partition

Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan

Nature of Action for Partition – An action for partition, which is typically brought by a person claiming to be co-
owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the plaintiff recognizes go be co-owners,
may be seen to present simultaneously two principal issues. First, there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is
indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned. Second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully
hurdles the first issue, there is the secondary issue of how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and
defendant(s) – i.e., what portion should go to which co-owner.

Prescription of Action for Partition – In the words of Article 494 of the Civil Code, “each co-owner may demand at
any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.” No matter how long the
co-ownership has lasted, a co-owner can always opt out of the co-ownership, and provided the defendant co-
owners or co-heirs have theretofore expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership, they cannot set up as a
defense the prescription of the action for partition. But if the defendants show that they had previously asserted
title in themselves adversely to the plaintiff and for the requisite period of time, the plaintiffs right to require
recognition of his status as a co-owner will have been lost by prescription and the court cannot issue an order
requiring partition.

FACTS The controversy here involved a 312-sqm parcel of land situated in San Juan, Malolos, Bulacan, which was
registered originally in the name of Januario Avendaño. Co-owners Avendaño, the intestate heirs of Januario,
then transferred their collective and undivided ¾ share in the subject lanfd to respondent Ernesto Roque and
Victor Roque, thereby vesting in the latter full and complete ownership of the property. The transactions were
embodied in 2 separate deeds of sale (Kasulatan ng Bilihang Patuluyan), both duly notarized. Subsequently, in an
unnotarized “Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan,” Ernesto and Victor purportedly sold a ¾ undivided portion of the
subject land to their half-sister, petitioner Concepcion Roque.

Upon the instance of petitioner and allegedly of respondent Ernesto, a Subdivision Plan was drawn identifying
and delineating a ¼ portion of the property as belonging to respondents Ernesto and Victor (who died) and a ¾
portion belonging to the petitioner. Petitioner claimed that the preparation of the Subdivision Plan was a
preliminary step leading eventually to partition of the subject land, partition allegedly having been previously
agreed upon inter se by the co-owners. Respondents (Ernesto + legal heirs of Victor), however, refused to
acknowledge petitioner’s claim of ownership of any portion of the subject land and rejected the plan to divide
the same.

Attempts at amicable settlement having fallen through, petitioner filed a complaint for Partition with Specific
Performance against the respondents, alleging that, as a co-owner, she had the right to seek partition of the
 PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021
property, and that she could not be compelled to remain in the co-ownership. In their answer, respondents
impugned the genuineness and due execution of the “Bilihan Lubos at Patuluyan” on the ground that the
signatures appearing thereon are not the authentic signatures of the supposed signatories. It was also alleged
that petitioner occupied a portion of the subject land by mere tolerance of the defendants. RTC ruled in favor of
the petitioner. However, respondent Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) dismissed the case on the ground that
after respondents denied the co-ownership and asserted that they are the exclusive and sole owners of the
subject land, the case has become one of ownership thus the action that may be brought by an aggrieved co-
owner is accion reivindicatoria. Hence, the petition.

ISSUE/S 1. Whether or not action for partition is the right remedy in the case at bar.
2. Whether or not prescription should run in favor of respondents, barring petitioner’s action for partition.

RULING/S 1. The Supreme Court ruled in the affirmative. An action for partition, which is typically brought by a
person claiming to be co-owner of a specified property against a defendant or defendants whom the
plaintiff recognizes go be co-owners, may be seen to present simultaneously two principal issues. First,
there is the issue of whether the plaintiff is indeed a co-owner of the property sought to be partitioned.
Second, assuming that the plaintiff successfully hurdles the first issue, there is the secondary issue of
how the property is to be divided between plaintiff and defendant(s) – i.e., what portion should go to
which co-owner.

Should the trial court find that the defendants do not dispute the status of the plaintiff as co-owner, the
court can forthwith proceed to the actual partitioning of the property involved. In case the defendants
assert in their Answer exclusive title in themselves adversely to the plaintiff, the court should not dismiss
the plaintiffs action for partition but, on the contrary, resolve the question of whether the plaintiff is co-
owner or not. Should the trial court find that the plaintiff was unable to sustain his claimed status as co-
owner, or that the defendants are or have become the sole and exclusive owners of the property
involved, the court will necessarily have to dismiss the action for partition. This result would be reached,
not because the wrong action was commenced by the plaintiff, but rather because the plaintiff having
been unable to show co-ownership rights himself, no basis exists for requiring the defendants to submit
to partition the property at stake. If, upon the other hand, the court after trial should find the existence
of co-ownership among the parties litigant, the court may and should order the partition of the property
in the same action.

2. The Supreme Court held in the negative. In the words of Article 494 of the Civil Code, “each co-owner
may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.”
No matter how long the co-ownership has lasted, a co-owner can always opt out of the co-ownership,
and provided the defendant co-owners or co-heirs have theretofore expressly or impliedly recognizes
the co-ownership, they cannot set up as a defense the prescription of the action for partition. But if the
defendants show that they had previously asserted title in themselves adversely to the plaintiff and for
the requisite period of time, the plaintiffs right to require recognition of his status as a co-owner will
have been lost by prescription and the court cannot issue an order requiring partition.

In the case at bar, petitioner Concepcion Roque – the co-owner seeking partition – has been and is
presently in open and continuous possession of a ¾ portion of the property owned in common.
Respondents do not dispute this finding of fact, although they would claim that petitioner’s possession is
merely tolerated by them. Furthermore, prior to the filing of the complaint, neither of the parties
involved had asserted or manifested a claim of absolute and exclusive ownership over the whole of the
subject property adverse to that of any of the other co-owners. In other words, co-ownership of the
property had continued to be recognized by all the owners. Consequently, the action for partition could
not have and, as a matter of fact, had not yet prescribed at the time of the institution by petitioner of
 PROPERTY – 2H 2020-2021
the action.