Noceda v CA

Facts:

June 1, 1981, Aurora Directo, Rodolfo Noceda, and Maria Arbizo, the daughter, grandson, and widow of
Celestino Arbizo, extrajudicially settled inherited land into shares of 11.4, 13.3, 41.8 thousand sq. m
respectively, with a 625 sq. m donation from Directo to Noceda. August 17, 1981 partition, parted the
the land into equal parts of 5, with 1/5 each on Directo and Noceda with the remaining shares to Arbizo.
Noceda constructed his house on the property donated, Directo constructed three huts and fenced his
property, but Noceda removed the said fence and occupied the huts without consent. Directo
demanded Noceda vacate but the latter refused and Directo filed a suit, trial court’s decision held Aug.
17, 1981 valid, the donation revoked, ordered Noceda vacate the donated portion and remove the
house or pay rent of 300 Php and pay attorney’s fees.Noceda appealed, CA affirmed the decision. In
petition for review Noceda contends that he did not usurp the property because metes and bounds
were still undetermined and thus they still remain co-owners.

Issue:

Whether or not Noceda usurped the property of Directo

Ruling:

In this case the source of co-ownership was intestate succession, and co-ownership can be ended by
partition and it can be executed extrajudicially, and heirs in this case did enter into one on Aug 17,1981.
There is no co-ownership where portions are determined and identifiable, partition conferring the
exclusive ownership of the property adjudicated to the respective owner. Noceda’s contention that
there exists no basis for usurpation and ingratitude, but it was established that he occupied the donated
portion and fenced the portion belonging to Directo without the knowledge and consent of the same
which is an act of usurpation. Noceda contends prescription of Directo’s action, the Court held that he
failed to show that (1) petitioner did not file action to revoke the donation within one year from the
discovery, and (2) that it was not possible for donor to institute the action. Thus the Court found no
reason to disturb the findings of the trial court.