JOINT ACTS OF CO-OWNERS

G.R. No. L-47378

DE GUZMAN v CA
CRUZ, J.

Summarized by Ira Agting

Siblings filed a complaint for partition of land against their sister and her husband (Sps
de Guzman). The land was owned by their mother (died with no will) who sold it 2 days
before she died, with a right to repurchase within 7 years. Sps de Guzman claim they
repurchased it for their co-heirs, but they also allege that they became owners of the
property through acquisitive prescription. SC: Under the deed of repurchase, the
ownership lies with the heirs. There was no acquisitive prescription by Sps de Guzman
by reason of their uninterrupted adverse possession for 43 years because prescription
does not run against a co-owner "so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the
co-ownership." Laches or estoppel cannot be invoked against the Siblings because they
were not sleeping on their rights as long as the co-ownership continued to be
recognized by the De Guzmans.

IMPORTANT PEOPLE
Siblings Antonio Austria, Roman Umali, Juliana Trinidad claiming moms land
from their sister
Margarita de Guzman Sister of respondents, repurchased land of their
deceased mom and is now claiming sole ownership with her husband

FACTS
Siblings Antonio Austria, Roman Umali, Juliana Trinidad filed a complaint for partition
against their sister Mercedes de Guzman and her husband Francisco. Subj is a 3
hectare parcel of unregistered land in Talisay, Batangas.

In the pre-trial conference, the parties stipulated that they were the sole heirs of their
mother Teofila Manimtim, who died without a will
Nov 4, 1923: Teofila sold the land 2 days before she died with a right to
repurchase for 7 years.
July 23, 1930: Sps de Guzman redeemed the property
The tax declaration in favor of Teofila was cancelled and issued in the name of
Francisco de Guzman

Margarita de Guzman claims she repurchased for her co-heirs and that she and her
husband had acquired ownership over it under the rules of prescription, laches and
estoppel.
They were in peaceful possession for 43 years

1
 RTC/CA: Repurchase could not have been made by the defendants
by themselves alone because the right belonged in common to the heirs of Teofila
Manimtim
Possession as a fact was not held exclusively by the defendant spouses but
shared with Antonio M. Austria, who remained in the disputed land until 1971.

ISSUES/HELD/RATIO

1. Whether under the deed of repurchase, the ownership of the land was with the Sps
or with the heirs of the deceased Teofila Manimtim -- WITH THE HEIRS
The repurchase of the land in 1930 was subject to the specified condition of
the pacto de retro, that the repurchase was to be made by the Teofila or her
successors. Mercedes de Guzman was not the only successor and her
husband was not even an heir.
A sale during the period of redemption to any other person other than the heirs
of the deceased mother, as co-owners of the subject land, could not have
been made by the vendee a retro. Any of the co-owners could have
successfully invalidated such a transaction.
Ecal v Ecal: Should one of the co-owners or co-heirs succeed in alone
redeeming the whole property, such co-owner or co-heir shall be considered
as a mere trustee with respect to the shares of his co-owners or co-heirs;
accordingly, no prescription will lie against the right to any co- owner or co-heir
to demand from the redemptioner his respective share in the property
redeemed, which share is subject of course to a lien in favor of the
redemptioner for the amount paid by him corresponding to the value of the
share.
What we see here is a deplorable attempt on the part of the petitioners to
deprive the private respondents of their lawful shares in the property derived
by them from their mother, and through a method hardly worthy of a sister.

Applicable provision:
Art. 1612. If several persons, jointly and in the same contract, should
sell an undivided immovable with a right of repurchase, none of them
may exercise this right for more than his respective share.

The same rule shall apply if the person who sold an immovable alone
has left several heirs, in which case each of the latter may only redeem
the part which he may have acquired.

2. W/N the Sps de Guzman became owners of the property by virtue of prescription
through adverse, actual continuous, public and exclusive possession and cultivation
-- NO.
There was no acquisitive prescription by Sps de Guzman by reason of their
uninterrupted adverse possession for 43 years because prescription does

2 2
 not run against a co-owner "so long as he expressly or impliedly
recognizes the co-ownership."
Since the adverse claim was made by Sps de Guzman was made only on
1973, no acquisitive prescriptive rights had as yet attached to them when the
complaint for partition was filed
Austria stayed in the disputed land for many years and enjoyed some of its
proceeds as a matter of right and not by tolerance or charity on the part of the
petitioners.

3. W/N the siblings are guilty of Laches and estoppel --NO.

Laches or estoppel cannot be invoked against the Siblings because they were
not sleeping on their rights as long as the co-ownership continued to be
recognized by the De Guzmans
The siblings claim they merely followed the custom of people among brothers
and sisters. "We slept because we knew are along that the defendants
(petitioners) would not cheat us, would not deny us our right with respect to the
land"

CA AFFIRMED