Importance of vigilance while in a state of co-ownership

By Atty. Eduardo Reyes III

There is a co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. (Article 484, New Civil Code).

Co-ownership can take place either upon agreement of the parties, ie., when two or more persons buy a property with the intention of becoming its joint owners; or, by law, as when two or more persons inherit a property from a common progenitor.

Once a co-ownership is established,  what are its implications?

            1)A prolonged state of co-ownership is not favored by law. The law favors single ownership and thus it allows anyone of the co-owners to demand partition at any time. It means that the right to ask for partition does not prescribe. Thus, “On a final note, partition is a right much favored, because it not only secures peace, but also promotes industry and enterprise. The rule of civil law and common law is that no one should be compelled to hold property in common with another grew out of a purpose to prevent strife and disagreement, to facilitate transmission of titles and avoid the inconvenience of joint holding x x x.” (Elpidio Magno etc. v. Lorenzo Magno, G.R. No. 206451, August 17, 2016).

            2)Exception to the rule that prescription does not run in favor of and against a co-owner. “Prescription may nevertheless run against a co-owner if there is adverse, open, continuous and exclusive possession of the co-owned property by the co-owner. In order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to the cestui que trust or other co-owners, the following requisites must concur:

(1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners;

(2) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or other co-owners; and,

(3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing. (Heirs of Feliciano Yambao, namely etc. v. Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao et al., G.R. No. 194260, April 13, 2016).

            2.1 Special rule when a Torrens title is obtained by one of the co-owners. “The issuance of the certificate of title would constitute an open and clear repudiation of any trust. In such a case, an action to demand partition among co-owners prescribes in 10 years, the point of reference being the date of the issuance of title over the property. But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, since if a person claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, the right to demand partition does not prescribe.” (Heirs of Feliciano Yambao, namely etc. v. Heirs of Hermogenes Yambao et al., G.R. No. 194260, April 13, 2016).

            3)Requisites for prescription to run against a co-owner.

1) It was already stated that as a rule, anyone of the co-owners may demand partition “at any time”, hence is imprescriptible. However, the rule admits of an exception.

2) For the exception to apply, the jurisprudentially-provided requisites are:

(2.1) that he has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the cestui que trust or other co-owners;

(2.2.) that such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust or other co-owners; and

(2.3) that the evidence thereon must be clear and convincing

3)For evidence to be deemed “clear and convincing”,  it is important to know the different degrees or gradation of quantum of proof.

These rules were recently reiterated in Substituted Heirs of Jaime S.T. Valiente v. Virginia A. Valiente, G.R. No. 194897, which came down on November 13, 2023. Therein, it was stated that:

“As a rule, prescription does not run in favor of a co-heir or co-owner for as long as the existence of the co-ownership is recognized. In other words, the 10-year and 30-year periods for acquisitive prescription under Articles 1134 and 1137 of the Civil Code, will only commence once there is a clear repudiation of the co-ownership.”

The danger posed by being too trusting while in a co-ownership is that one or some of the co-owners may perform acts that would amount to a “repudiation” thereof and the same can allow for them to later exclude the unsuspecting co-owners from their rights over the co-owned property.

Simply, “repudiation” means the act of not recognizing that the property is co-owned. So when one co-owner acts is if he/she is the sole owner, ie., as when one of them applies for a Torrens title only in his/her name, then the other co-owners must not be passive by not taking any action.

While being in a state of co-ownership therefore, one must be vigilant to ensure that everyone in the co-ownership will enjoy their rights and advantages. The principle that binds all the co-owners is trust.

Just like in all aspects of life, one must be trustworthy in regard to their dealings with others.

(The author is the senior partner of ET Reyes III & Associates– a law firm based in Iloilo City. He is a litigation attorney, a law professor, MCLE lecturer, bar reviewer and a book author. His website is etriiilaw.com).