Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 143 views

    Adille Vs CA, 157 SCRA 455 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Eyn Herrera Granatin
    1. Rustico Adille repurchased land that his mother had sold, but did so alone without his half-siblings. He secured title only in his name. 2. His half-siblings sued, alleging he was just a trustee. The court found the property remained in co-ownership despite Rustico repurchasing it alone. 3. Rustico was found guilty of fraud for claiming sole ownership in an affidavit and registering the land only in his name. He was deemed a trustee for his half-siblings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Adille Vs CA, 157 SCRA 455 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Eyn Herrera Granatin
    143 views2 pages
    1. Rustico Adille repurchased land that his mother had sold, but did so alone without his half-siblings. He secured title only in his name. 2. His half-siblings sued, alleging he was just a trustee. The court found the property remained in co-ownership despite Rustico repurchasing it alone. 3. Rustico was found guilty of fraud for claiming sole ownership in an affidavit and registering the land only in his name. He was deemed a trustee for his half-siblings.

    Original Description:

    Obligation and Contracts

    Original Title

    Adille vs CA, 157 SCRA 455 Digest

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1. Rustico Adille repurchased land that his mother had sold, but did so alone without his half-siblings. He secured title only in his name. 2. His half-siblings sued, alleging he was just a trustee. The court found the property remained in co-ownership despite Rustico repurchasing it alone. 3. Rustico was found guilty of fraud for claiming sole ownership in an affidavit and registering the land only in his name. He was deemed a trustee for his half-siblings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    143 views2 pages

    Adille Vs CA, 157 SCRA 455 Digest

    Uploaded by

    Eyn Herrera Granatin
    1. Rustico Adille repurchased land that his mother had sold, but did so alone without his half-siblings. He secured title only in his name. 2. His half-siblings sued, alleging he was just a trustee. The court found the property remained in co-ownership despite Rustico repurchasing it alone. 3. Rustico was found guilty of fraud for claiming sole ownership in an affidavit and registering the land only in his name. He was deemed a trustee for his half-siblings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    G.R. No.

    L-44546 January 29, 1988

    RUSTICO ADILLE, petitioner,

    vs.

    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, EMETERIA ASEJO, TEODORICA ASEJO, DOMINGO ASEJO, JOSEFA
    ASEJO and SANTIAGO ASEJO, respondents.

    FACTS:

    Rustico Adille, the petitioner, first born son from the first marriage of her mother Felisa Alzul,
    repurchased by himself alone the land the latter sold sometime in 1939, that the said land was not
    repurchased from pacto de recto within three (3) years before her mother died. He executed a deed of
    extra-judicial partition representing himself to be the only heir and child of his mother with the
    consequence that he was able to secure title in his name alone.

    Eventually, Emeteria Asejo, Teodorica Asejo, Domingo Asejo, Josefa Asejo And Santiago Asejo, his half-
    brothers and sisters, the plaintiffs, filed a case for partition and alleged that he was only a trustee on an
    implied trust when he redeemed the property of their mother,-and this is the evidence, but as it also
    turned out that one of plaintiffs. Moreover, Emeteria Asejo, half-sister was occupying a portion of the
    land, which the petitioner wants her to vacate.

    The respondents, appealed to CA the decision of the trial court when it resolved that the petitioner has
    absolute owner of the property; not ordering the partition of the property; and ordering one of the
    respondent who is in possession of the portion of the property to vacate the land.

    The CA reversed the decision of the trial court. Now the Rustico Adille, the petitioner, filed a motion of
    certiorari from CA’s decision.

    ISSUE:

    1. WON, a co-owner may have an exclusive ownership over the property held in common upon the
    failure of his co-heirs to join him in its redemption within the period required by law.

    2. WON, the petitioner Rustico had constituted himself a negotiorum gestor.

    HELD:

    1. No. The right of repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with aspect to his share alone. While the
    records show that the petitioner redeemed the property in its entirety, shouldering the expenses
    therefor, that did not make him the owner of all of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing
    state of co-ownership.

    ART. 488. Each co-owner shall have a right to compel the other co-owners to contribute to the expenses
    of preservation of the thing or right owned in common and to the taxes. Any one of the latter may
    exempt himself from this obligation by renouncing so much of his undivided interest as may be
    equivalent to his share of the expenses and taxes. No such waiver shall be made if it is prejudicial to the
    co-ownership.
    The result is that the property remains to be in a condition of co-ownership. While a vendee a retro,
    under Article 1613 of the Code, "may not be compelled to consent to a partial redemption," the
    redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of the property in its totality does not vest in him ownership
    over it. Failure on the part of all the co-owners to redeem it entitles the vendee a retro to retain the
    property and consolidate title thereto in his name. 7 But the provision does not give to the redeeming
    co-owner the right to the entire property. It does not provide for a mode of terminating a co-ownership.

    Neither does the fact that the petitioner had succeeded in securing title over the parcel in his name
    terminate the existing co-ownership. While his half-brothers and sisters are, as we said, liable to him for
    reimbursement as and for their shares in redemption expenses, he cannot claim exclusive right to the
    property owned in common. Registration of property is not a means of acquiring ownership. It operates
    as a mere notice of existing title, that is, if there is one.

    2. No. The petitioner must then be said to be a trustee of the property on behalf of the private
    respondents. The Civil Code states:

    ART. 1456. If property is acquired through mistake or fraud, the person obtaining it is, by force of law,
    considered a trustee of an implied trust for the benefit of the person from whom the property comes.

    We agree with the respondent Court of Appeals that fraud attended the registration of the property.
    The petitioner's pretension that he was the sole heir to the land in the affidavit of extrajudicial
    settlement he executed preliminary to the registration thereof betrays a clear effort on his part to
    defraud his brothers and sisters and to exercise sole dominion over the property. The aforequoted
    provision therefore applies.

    He is guilty of fraud, and must act as trustee, the private respondents being the beneficiaries, under the
    Article 1456. The evidence, of course, points to the second alternative the petitioner having asserted
    claims of exclusive ownership over the property and having acted in fraud of his co-heirs. He cannot
    therefore be said to have assume the mere management of the property abandoned by his co-heirs, the
    situation Article 2144 of the Code contemplates. In any case, as the respondent Court itself affirms, the
    result would be the same whether it is one or the other. The petitioner would remain liable to the
    Private respondents, his co-heirs.

    Doctrines:

    You might also like