FIRST DIVISION DECISION

[G.R. No. L-46345. January 30, 1990.]

RESTITUTO CENIZA and JESUS CENIZA , petitioners, vs. THE HON. COURT This is a petition for review of the order dated October 29, 1976, of the Court of
OF APPEALS, MAGNO DABON, VICENTA DABON, TERESITA DABON, Appeals in CA-G.R. No. 48546 entitled, "Restituto Ceniza, et al. vs. Magno Dabon, et al.,"
EUGENIA DABON, and TOMAS DABON , respondents. dismissing the petitioners' complaint for reconveyance of their shares in co-ownership
property and reversing the decision of the trial court in their favor.
Vicente P. Valera and Pedro Rosito & Jesus F. Balicanta for petitioners. On June 14, 1967, the petitioners led against private respondents, an action in
Victorino U. Montecillo for respondents. the Court of First Instance of Cebu for recovery of their title to Lots Nos. 627-B and
627-C (being portions of Lot No. 627 with an area of approximately 5,306 square
meters) situated in Casuntingan, Mandaue, Cebu (now Mandaue City), which originally
SYLLABUS formed part of "Hacienda de Mandaue" of the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu. The
property is covered by reconstituted Original Certi cate of Title No. RO-10996 issued
1. CIVIL LAW; CO-OWNERSHIP; AS A GENERAL RULE; PRESCRIPTION SHALL on February 8, 1939 (formerly Decree No. 694438 issued on February 27, 1934) in the
NOT RUN IN FAVOR OF A CO-OWNER; EXCEPTION. — Since a trust relation and co- name of "Vicente Dabon married to Marcela [or Marcelina] Ceniza." (pp. 7 and 19,
ownership were proven to exist between the predecessors-in-interest of both Record on Appeal).
petitioners and private respondents, prescription did not run in favor of Dabon's heirs Petitioners are the descendants of Manuel Ceniza while the private respondents
except from the time that they repudiated the co-ownership and made the repudiation are the descendants of his sister, So a Ceniza. So a Ceniza was childless but she had
known to the other co-owners, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza (Cortes vs. Oliva, 33 Phil. an adopted daughter named Flaviana Ceniza, who begot a daughter named Marced
480). Paragraph 5 of Article 494 of the Civil Code provides — "No prescription shall run Ceniza and who in turn had a daughter named Marcelina (or Marcela) Ceniza who
in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he married Vicente Dabon. Private respondents are the children of this marriage and they
expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership." In Custodio v. Casiano, 9 SCRA are the great-great-grandchildren of Sofia Ceniza. prcd

841, we 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 On the other hand, Manuel Ceniza had an only son, Pablo, who had two sons,
that this trust relation had ever been repudiated by said trustee, it is held that a relation Santiago and Jose Ceniza. Petitioners Restituto and Jesus Ceniza and a certain
of co-ownership existed between such trustee and his sisters and the right of the Nemesia Ceniza-Albina are their children and the great-grandchildren of Manuel Ceniza.
successors-in-interest of said sisters to bring the present action for recovery of their The records disclose that when Hacienda de Mandaue was subdivided for resale
shares therein against the successors-in-interest of said trustee cannot be barred by to the occupants in 1929, Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon, who were residing in the
prescription, despite the lapse of 25 years from the date of registration of the land in hacienda, jointly purchased Lot 627 on installment basis and they agreed, for
the trustee's name." convenience, to have the land registered in the name of Dabon. Since then, Jose Ceniza,
2. ID.; IMPLIED TRUST; ESTABLISHED IN THE CASE AT BAR. — The Vicente Dabon, and their heirs have possessed their respective portions of the land,
registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in favor of his declared the same for taxation, paid real estate taxes on their respective shares, and
co-owner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452 of the Civil Code states: "If made their respective installment payments to the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu.
two or more persons agree to purchase property and by common consent the legal After Dabon died in 1954, his seven (7) children, named Magno, Jacinta, Tomas,
title is taken in the name of one of them for the bene t of all, a trust is created by force Flaviana, Soledad, Teresita and Eugenia, succeeded to his possession of a portion of
of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each." the land.
3. ID.; ID.; AS A GENERAL RULE, TRUSTEE'S POSSESSION IS NOT ADVERSE On November 4, 1961, a private land surveyor, Espiritu Bunagan, on the request
AND CANNOT RIPEN INTO TITLE BY PRESCRIPTION; ELEMENTS FOR TRUSTEE'S of Jacinta Dabon and Restituto Ceniza who jointly defrayed the cost, divided Lot 627
ADVERSE POSSESSION. — This Court has ruled in numerous cases involving duciary into three parts, namely:
relations that, as a general rule, the trustee's possession is not adverse and therefore
(1) Lot No. 627-A with 3,538 square meters for Marcela Ceniza;
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 (2) Lot No. 627-B with 884 square meters for Restituto Ceniza; and
repudiation amounting to the ouster of the cestui que trust; b) that such positive acts (3) Lot No. 627-C with 834 square meters for Nemesia Ceniza-Albina, who
of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust; and c) that the evidence later bequeathed her share to her brother, Jesus Ceniza. (p. 19, Record on Appeal).
thereon should be clear and conclusive.
The present controversy arose because the private respondents refused to
convey Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-C to the petitioners. They claimed that their
predecessor-in-interest, Vicente Dabon, was the sole and exclusive owner of Lot 627, by
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com
 purchase from the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu. In their answer to the petitioners' been ousted from the land. They continue to possess their respective shares of Lot 627
complaint for reconveyance in June 1967, they alleged that the petitioners' right of and they have been paying the realty taxes thereon. Restituto's house stands on his
action had already prescribed. portion of the Land. Assuming that the private respondents' rejection of the subdivision
Petitioners replied that Vicente Dabon held the land in trust for them, as co- plan for the partition of the land was an act of repudiation of the co-ownership,
owners, hence, their action for reconveyance was imprescriptible. prescription had not yet set in when the petitioners instituted the present action for
reconveyance. These circumstances were overlooked by the Court of Appeals.
On August 31, 1970, the trial court rendered judgment for the petitioners. Finding
that there existed a co-ownership among the parties, it ordered the private respondents In Custodio v. Casiano, 9 SCRA 841, we ruled that:
to execute deeds of conveyance of Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-C in favor of the plaintiffs, "Where title to land was issued in the name of a co-heir merely with the
Restituto and Jesus Ceniza, respectively (p. 35, Record on Appeal). llcd
understanding that he would act as a trustee of his sisters, and there is no
On appeal by the defendants (now private respondents) the Court of Appeals on evidence that this trust relation had ever been repudiated by said trustee, it is held
October 29, 1976, reversed that decision of the trial court. It ruled that the petitioners' 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
right of action had prescribed after the lapse of 20 years from the date of registration
recovery of their shares therein against the successors-in-interest of said trustee
of the land on February 8, 1939 in Vicente Dabon's name (p. 32, Rollo).
cannot be barred by prescription, despite the lapse of 25 years from the date of
The petitioners have appealed to this Court by a petition for review under Rule 45 registration of the land in the trustee's name." (Emphasis supplied.)
of the Rules of Court.
The legal issue presented by the petition is whether the registration of the title of
the land in the name of one of the co-owners constituted a repudiation of the co- I n Escobar v. Locsin , 74 Phil. 86, we af rmed the duty of the courts to shield
ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. duciary relations "against every manner of chicanery or detestable design cloaked by
legal technicalities" and to guard against misuse of the Torrens system "to foment
We find merit in the petition for review.
betrayal in the performance of a trust."
The trial court correctly ruled that since a trust relation and co-ownership were
In this case, since the statutory period of limitation within which to le an action
proven to exist between the predecessors-in-interest of both petitioners and private
for reconveyance, after the defendants had repudiated the co-ownership in 1961, had
respondents, prescription did not run in favor of Dabon's heirs except from the time
not yet run its course when the petitioners led said action in 1967, the action was not
that they repudiated the co-ownership and made the repudiation known to the other co-
barred by prescription.
owners, Restituto and Jesus Ceniza (Cortes vs. Oliva, 33 Phil. 480).
WHEREFORE, the decision of the Court of Appeals is hereby REVERSED AND SET
Paragraph 5 of Article 494 of the Civil Code provides —
ASIDE and the decision dated August 31, 1970 of the then Court of First Instance of
"No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners Cebu, Branch VI, in Civil Case No. R-10030 is reinstated. Costs against the private
or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership." respondents. cdrep

The registration of Lot No. 627 in the name of Vicente Dabon created a trust in SO ORDERED.
favor of his co-owner Jose Ceniza, and the latter's heirs. Article 1452 of the Civil Code Narvasa, Cruz, Gancayco and Medialdea, JJ., concur.
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 bene t of all, a trust is
created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to the interest of each."

This Court has ruled in numerous cases involving duciary 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 cestui que trust;
b) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui
que trust; and
c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and conclusive. LexLib

The above elements are not present here for the petitioners co-owners have not
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com CD Technologies Asia, Inc. © 2016 cdasiaonline.com