Salvador v. CA, 243 SCRA 407 (Case Digest)

 

Salvador v. CA,

243 SCRA 407

 

 

Facts:

Alipio Yabo was the owner of Lot No. 6080 and Lot No. 6180 situated in Barrio Bulua, Cagayan de Oro City. Title thereto devolved upon his nine children, namely, Victoriano, Procopio, Lope, Jose, Pelagia, Baseliza, Francisca, Maria, and Gaudencia, upon his death sometime before or during the second world war.

Pastor Makibalo, who is the husband of Maria Yabo, one of Alipio's children, filed with the then Court of First Instance of Misamis Oriental a complaint, against the spouses Alberto and Elpia Yabo for "Quieting of Title, Annulment of Documents, and Damages." In the complaint, he alleged that he owned a total of eight shares of the subject lots [by purchasing it].

The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the late Alipio Yabo2 lodged with the same court a complaint for partition and quieting of title with damages,against Pastor Makibalo, Enecia Cristal, and the spouses Eulogio and Remedies Salvador.

Pastor mortgaged the two lots to the spouses Eulogio and Remedios Salvador.  On 26 September 1978, he executed a document denominated as a "Confirmation and Quitclaim" whereby he waived all his rights, interests, and participation in the lots in favor of the Salvador spouses. 

 The lower court rule that said children have lost their rights by laches "for their inaction for a very long period and their rights have become stale."

 

 

Issue:

Whether or not the rights of Pastor's co-heirs in the estate of Maria Yabo were extinguished through prescription or laches.

 

 

Held:

No.

 

 

Ratio:

Ordinarily, possession by one joint owner will not be presumed to be adverse to the others, but will, as a rule, be held to be for the benefit of all. Much stronger evidence is required to show an adverse holding by one of several joint owners than by a stranger; and in such cases, to sustain a plea of prescription, it must always clearly appear that one who was originally a joint owner has repudiated the claims of his co-owners, and that his co-owners were apprised or should have been apprised of his claim of adverse and exclusive ownership before the alleged prescription began to run.