26. Gerona vs.
De Guzman
FACTS: petitioners herein, namely, Ignacio, Maria Concepcion, Francisco and Delfin, all surnamed Gerona,
alleged that they are the legitimate children of Domingo Gerona and Placida de Guzman; that the latter, who
died on August 9, 1941 was a legitimate daughter of Marcelo de Guzman and his first wife, Teodora de la Cruz;
that after the death of his first wife, Marcelo de Guzman married Camila Ramos, who begot him several
children, namely, respondents Carmen, Jose, Clemente, Francisco, Rustica, Pacita and Victoria, all surnamed
De Guzman; that Marcelo de Guzman died on September 11, 1945; that subsequently, or on May 6, 1948,
respondents executed a deed of "extra-judicial settlement of the estate of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman",
fraudulently misrepresenting therein that they were the only surviving heirs of the deceased Marcelo de
Guzman, although they well knew that petitioners were, also, his forced heirs; that respondents had thereby
succeeded fraudulently in causing the transfer certificates of title to seven (7) parcels of land, issued in the
name of said deceased, to be cancelled and new transfer certificates of title to be issued in their own name, in
the proportion of 1/7th individual interest for each; that such fraud was discovered by the petitioners only the
year before the institution of the case; that petitioners forthwith demanded from respondents their
(petitioners) share in said properties, to the extent of 1/8th interest thereon; and that the respondents
refused to heed said demand, thereby causing damages to the petitioners. Accordingly, the latter prayed that
judgment be rendered nullifying said deed of extra-judicial settlement, insofar as it deprives them of their
participation of 1/18th of the properties in litigation; ordering the respondents to reconvey to petitioners their
aforementioned share in said properties; ordering the register of deeds to cancel the transfer certificates of
title secured by respondents as above stated and to issue new certificates of title in the name of both the
petitioners and the respondents in the proportion of 1/8th for the former and 7/8th for the latter; ordering
the respondents to render accounts of the income of said properties and to deliver to petitioners their lawful
share therein; and sentencing respondents to pay damages and attorney's fees.
In their answer, respondents maintained that petitioners' mother, the deceased Placida de Guzman, was not
entitled to share in the estate of Marcelo de Guzman, she being merely a spurious child of the latter, and that
petitioners' action is barred by the statute of limitations.
Petitioners maintain that since they and respondents are co-heirs of the deceased Marcelo de Guzman, the
present action for partition of the latter's estate is not subject to the statute of limitations of action; that, if
affected by said statute, the period of four (4) years therein prescribed did not begin to run until actual
discovery of the fraud perpetrated by respondents, which, it is claimed, took place in 1956 or 1957; and that
accordingly, said period had not expired when the present action was commenced on November 4, 1958.
ISSUE: Whether or not petitioner’s contention is tenable.
RULING: No. Petitioners’ contention is untenable. Although, as a general rule, an action for partition among
co-heirs does not prescribe, this is true only as long as the defendants do not hold the property in question
under an adverse title (Cordova vs. Cordova, L-9936, January 14, 1948). The statute of limitations operates as
in other cases, from the moment such adverse title is asserted by the possessor of the property.
When respondents executed the aforementioned deed of extra-judicial settlement stating therein that they
are the sole heirs of the late Marcelo de Guzman, and secured new transfer certificates of title in their own
name, they thereby excluded the petitioners from the estate of the deceased, and, consequently, set up a title
adverse to them. And this is why petitioners have brought this action for the annulment of said deed upon the
ground that the same is tainted with fraud.
