Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R. Cichon

Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R.
Cichon
G.R. No. 161720. November 22, 2005.
FACTS:
In 1935, Emilio Restar (Restar) died intestate, leaving eight (8) children-compulsory heirs, namely: Flores
Restar, Dolores Restar-Cichon, Perpetua Restar-Sta. Maria, Paciencia Restar-Manares, Dominica
Restar-Relojero, Policarpio Restar, Maria Restar-Rose and Adolfo Restar.
In 1960, Restar's eldest child, Flores, on the basis of a Joint Affidavit, executed with one Helen Restar,
the cancellation of Tax Declaration in Restar's name covering a 5,9183 square meter parcel of land, Lot
3177 (the lot), located at Barangay Carugdog, Lezo, Aklan which was among the properties left by
Restar, and the issuance of Tax Declaration in his name.
When Flores died, the latter’s co-heirs discovered the cancellation of Restar's Tax Declaration No. 6696
and the issuance in lieu thereof of Tax Declaration No. 111344 in his name.
Flores' sisters Dolores R. Cichon, Perpetua Sta. Maria, and Maria Rose who died already, together with
Flores' surviving sisters Dominica Restar-Relojero and Paciencia Restar-Manares, filed a Complaint
against the Heirs of Flores for "partition and declaration of nullity of documents, ownership with damages
and preliminary injunction" before the RTC-Aklan.
Flores' brothers Policarpio and Adolfo were impleaded also as defendants, they being unwilling co-
plaintiffs.
The plaintiffs, herein respondents, alleged that, during the lifetime of Flores, they were given their shares
of palay from the lot and even after Flores death up to 1991. After Flores' death, his widow Esmenia
appealed to them to allow her to hold on to the lot to finance the education of her children, to which they
(the plaintiffs) agreed on the condition that after the children had finished their education, it would be
divided into eight (8) equal parts; and upon their demand for partition of the lot, the defendants Heirs of
Flores refused, and are nor claiming that they were the lawful owners thereof as they had inherited it from
Flores.
In an answer, the defendants-herein petitioners Heirs of Flores claimed that they had been in possession
of the lot in the concept of owner for more than thirty (30) years and have been paying realty taxes since
time immemorial. And they denied having shared with the plaintiffs the produce of the lot or that upon
Flores' death in 1989, Esmenia requested the plaintiffs to allow her to hold on to it to finance her
children's education, they contending that by 1977, the children had already finished their respective
courses.
The defendants further claimed that after World War II and under the "new Tax Declaration in 1945,"
Flores caused the transfer of parcels of ricelands to his siblings as their shares from the estate of their
father Restar; and a notarized extra-judicial partition was subsequently executed by Restar's heirs,
dividing and apportioning among themselves 4 parcels of land.
The defendant Adolfo Restar, by separate Answer, alleged that the complaint did not state a cause of
action as against him for he interposed no objection to the partition of the lot among the heirs of Restar.
As for the defendant Policarpio Restar, in his Amended Answer acknowledged Flores as the owner of the
lot but claimed that a portion of it (1,315 square meters), was sold to him as shown by a Deed of Absolute
Sale. He thus prayed that, among other things, an order for the partition of the lot among Restar's heirs
be issued excluding that portion sold to him by Flores.
After trial, RTC held that Flores' share in Restar's estate was not the lot but that covered by Cadastral Lot
No. 3183. Nevertheless, the trial court, holding that Flores and his heirs had performed acts sufficient to
constitute repudiation of the co-ownership, concluded that they had acquired the lot by prescription.
Respecting the defendant Policarpio's claim that a portion of the lot was sold to him, the trial court
discredited the same upon noting that Flores' signature in the purported Deed of Sale differed from those
appearing in other documents submitted by the parties; When the said Deed of Sale was alleged to have
been executed, Flores was admittedly paralyzed and bedridden and could not have written his name in a
"straight" manner, as in fact his signature appearing in at least two documents dated 1980 was "crooked,"
and there existed discrepancies in the spelling of Flores' wife's signature.
The trial court thus dismissed the complaint by Decision. On appeal, the appellate court reversed the
decision of the trial court, finding that the defendants Heirs of Flores failed to prove that their possession
of the lot excluded their co-owners or that they derived title to it from a separate conveyance to them by
Restar.
The appellate court further found that there was no adequate notice by Flores to his other co-heirs/co-
owners of the repudiation of the co-ownership and neither was there a categorical assertion by the
defendants of their exclusive right to the entire lot that barred the plaintiffs' claim of ownership.
The appellate court found it credible for the plaintiffs to have failed to immediately take legal action to
protect their rights on account of forbearance towards their eldest brother who had asked them to
continue cultivating the lot to support his children's education.
Respecting the defendant Policarpio's claim that part of the lot had been sold to him by Flores, the
appellate court sustained the trial court's rejection thereof.
ISSUE:
W/N Heirs of Flores acquired ownership over the lot by extraordinary prescription.
RULING:
Acquisitive prescription of dominion and other real rights may be ordinary or extraordinary. Ordinary
acquisitive prescription requires possession of things in good faith and with just title for a period of ten
years. Without good faith and just title, acquisitive prescription can only be extraordinary in character
which requires uninterrupted adverse possession for thirty years.
When Restar died in 1935, his eight children became pro indiviso co-owners of the lot by intestate
succession. Heirs of Chichon never possessed the lot, however, much less asserted their claim thereto
until January 21, 1999 when they filed the complaint for partition subject of the present petition. In
contrast, Flores took possession of the lot after Restar’s death and exercised acts of dominion thereon —
tilling and cultivating the land, introducing improvements, and enjoying the produce thereof. Flores’
possession thus ripened into ownership through acquisitive prescription after the lapse of thirty years in
accordance with the earlier quoted Article 1137 of the New Civil Code.
Heirs of Cichon did not deny that aside from the verbal partition of one parcel of land in Carugdog, Lezo,
Aklan way back in 1945, they also had an amicable partition of the lands of Emilio Restar in Cerrudo and
Palale, Banga Aklan on September 28, 1973 (exhibit “20”). If they were able to demand the partition, why
then did they not demand the inclusion of the land in question in order to settle once and for all the
inheritance from their father Emilio Restar, considering that at that time all of the brothers and sisters, the
eight heirs of Emilio Restar, were still alive and participated in the signing of the extra-judicial partition?
Indeed, the following acts of Flores show possession adverse to his co-heirs: the cancellation of the tax
declaration certificate in the name of Restar and securing another in his name; the execution of a
Joint Affidavit stating that he is the owner and possessor thereof to the exclusion of respondents;
payment of real estate tax and irrigation fees without respondents having ever contributed any share
therein; and continued enjoyment of the property and its produce to the exclusion of respondents. And
Flores’ adverse possession was continued by his heirs.
The trial court’s finding and conclusion that Flores and his heirs had for more than 38 years possessed
the land in open, adverse and continuous possession in the concept of owner — which length of
possession had never been questioned, rebutted or disputed by any of the heirs of Cichon, being thus
duly supported by substantial evidence, he and his heirs have become owner of the lot
by extraordinary prescription. It is unfortunate that respondents slept on their rights. Dura lex sed lex.

Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R. Cichon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R. Cichon

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R. Cichon

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of F. Restar v. Heirs of D.R.

You might also like