DELIA BAILON-CASILAO, LUZ PAULINO-ANG, EMMA PAULINO-YBANEZ,

NILDA PAULINO-TOLENTINO, and SABINA BAILON, petitioners,

vs.
THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and CELESTINO AFABLE, respondents.
G.R. No. 78178 | April 15, 1988
CORTES, J.
Digest Author: Jude Fanila

Topic: Remedies for Protecting Property Rights – Extinctive Prescription

Case Summary: Respondent, Celestino Afable bought the lots of petitioner from their sibling,
Roalia and Gaudencia Bailon. Lot was in co-ownership with the other petitioners. Upon finding
out, heirs brought an action for recovery of possession and nullification of the deed of sale.
Afable brought the defense of prescription and laches.
SC held that in sales over properties co-owner where the vendor alienates the entirety of the
property without authorization of the other co-owners, the proper action is division of the
property. This is because the sale is valid insofar as the portions co-owned. An action for
partition can never prescribe.

Petitioners: Delia Bailon-Castilao – Co-owner, sibling of Rosalia and Gaudencio

Luz Paulino-Ang, Emma Paulino-Ybanez, Nilda Paulino-Tolentino – Children of Nenita
Sabina Bailon - Co-owner, sibling of Rosalia and Gaudencio
Respondents: CA - | Celestino Afable – buyer of the land.

Doctrines Involved:
Prescription – NCC 494 provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in co-ownership,
each co-owner may demand the partition of thing anytime. Similarly, the provision expressly
states that no prescription shall lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heir so long as he expressly or
impliedly recognizes co-ownership. As applied in Budiong v. Bondoc this means that an action
for partition is imprescriptible.

RA 496 also explicitly provides that in no cases can there be prescription or adverse possession
against registered land.

Standing to invoke imprescriptibility – Respondent also argues that petitioner heirs cannot
invoke the imprescriptibility of a registered land. Citing Pasion v. Pasion which held that the
imprescribility of a torrens title can only be invoked by the registered owner.

SC says this is wrong. As held in Umbay v. Alecha in the same manner prescription cannot be
raised against the registered owner, the same applies to their hereditary successors as the heirs
merely step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law. The ruling in Pasion applies only
to transferees other than direct issues or heirs i.e. only to complete strangers. Here, direct heirs.

Laches – There are (4) elements of laches.

  (1) conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to
the situation of which complaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy;
 (2) delay in asserting the corporations complainant's rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity
to institute suit;
 (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would
assert the right on which he bases his suit; and,
 (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant,
or the suit is not held to be barred

(2) Delay – Mere fact of delay is insufficient to invoke laches. Instead, there must be (1)
Complainant must have had knowledge of the conduct of defendant or one of one under whom
he claims; (2) He must have been afforded an opportunity to institute the suit.

FACTS:
1. The case involves a dispute over a parcel of land (48,849 sq. m) located in Sorsogon
covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 1771. Initially registered in the names of
Rosalia, Gaudencio, Sabina Bernabe Nenita and Delia Bailon as co-owners. At the time
of the decision. Gaudencio and Nenita are dead. Nenita’s heirs (Luz, Emma and Nilda)
are the petitioners.
2. Selling history of the land
a. August 23, 1948 – Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon sold a portion of (16.283 sq.) to
one Donato Delgado.
b. May 13, 1949 Rosalia sold the remainder of the land (34,566 sq.) to Ponciana de
Lanuza. On the same day, Lanuza acquired the portion sold to Donato Delgado.
c. Dec. 3, 1975 – John Lanuza (husband of Ponciana) sold the two parcels of land to
Celestino Afable, Sr.
3. Petitioners filed a case for recovery of property and damages with notice of lis pendens
on March 13, 1981 against respondent, Celestino Afable. Note that this was the year that
they found out about the sale.
a. Celestione raised the defense that he had acquired the land through prescription,
and that the petitioners were guilty of laches.
4. RTC Decision (didn’t say which RTC)
a. Celestione Afable was the co-owner of 2/6th of the land, having bought the
undivided shares of Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon
b. Found the other petitioners, to be pro-indiviso co-owners, being entitled to 1/6 th
share each in the property.
i. Sabina Bailon
ii. Bernabe Bailon
iii. Heirs of Nenita Bailon (Luz, Emma and Nilda)
iv. Delia Bailon
5. CA REVERSED the RTC
a. Found that there was no prescription, as the petitioners were co-owners of the
original vendor.
 b. But, ruled that even if registered property cannot be lost by prescription, recovery
may be barred by Laches following the ruling in Mejia de Lucaz v. Gamponia.
c. Because of laches, dismissed the petitioner’s complaint.
6. Led to current appeal.

ISSUES + HELD:
1. W/N estoppel by laches applies to the petitioners? – NO
a. NCC 493i - that each-co-owner of a property shall have full ownership of his
part. Aleination or mortgage shall be limited only to the parts which the co-owner
owns. As held in Ramirez v Bautista in case a co-owner sells the whole property,
the sale will be valid only insofar as the portion that the co-owner owns.
i. Proper Action – applying the above principle, the proper course of action
is neither nullification of the sale nor recovery of possession but instead,
the division of the common property as both parties are co-owners.
b. Prescription – NCC 494 provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in
co-ownership, each co-owner may demand the partition of thing anytime.
Similarly, the provision expressly states that no prescription shall lie in favor of a
co-owner or co-heir so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes co-
ownership. As applied in Budiong v. Bondoc this means that an action for
partition is imprescriptible.
i. RA 496 also explicitly provides that in no cases can there be prescription
or adverse possession against registered land.
ii. Standing to invoke imprescriptibility – Respondent also argues that
petitioner heirs cannot invoke the imprescriptibility of a registered land.
Citing Pasion v. Pasion which held that the imprescribility of a torrens
title can only be invoked by the registered owner.
1. SC says this is wrong. As held in Umbay v. Alecha in the same
manner prescription cannot be raised against the registered owner,
the same applies to their hereditary successors as the heirs merely
step into the shoes of the decedent by operation of law. The ruling
in Pasion applies only to transferees other than direct issues or
heirs i.e. only to complete strangers. Here, direct heirs.
c. Laches – There are (4) elements of laches.
i. (1) conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims,
giving rise to the situation of which complaint is made and for which the
complainant seeks a remedy;
ii. (2) delay in asserting the corporations complainant's rights, the
complainant having had knowledge or notice of the defendant's conduct
and having been afforded an opportunity to institute suit;
iii. (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right on which he bases his suit; and,
iv. (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to
the complainant, or the suit is not held to be barred
d. Application – as applied to the facts, elements (2) and (3) are missing.
 i. (2) Delay – Mere fact of delay is insufficient to invoke laches. Instead,
there must be (1) Complainant must have had knowledge of the conduct of
defendant or one of one under whom he claims; (2) He must have been
afforded an opportunity to institute the suit.
1. In the case, while there was a delay, the petitioners had no
knowledge of the sale, neither did they have opportunity to bring
the suit.
a. Notice of Sale - They were not given notice of the sale. The
property was under management and administration of
Rosalia Bailon. At the time of the sale, the co-owners were
living away from the Sorsogon.
b. Opportunity – Because they only found out about the sale
in 1981, it was only then that they had the chance to bring
suit.
ii. (3) Lack Of Knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the
complainant would assert the right – Element was not present. In fact,
respondent guilty of bad fait in purchasing the property in its entirety as he
knew about the co-ownership but still bought it despite lack of consent on
the part of the other co-owners. Evidence also shows that he was aware of
the flaws in his title, as he went to petitioner Delia to ask her to sign a
document to cure the flaw and that he later filed a petition to register the
title solely in his name.
1. Even if land was mis-represented as unregistered, the land was
already registered. The certificate of title indicated co-ownerhsip.
This served as constructive notice which should have prompted
Afable to conduct a searching inquiry.
a. Gonzales v. IAC – a person dealing with registered land
ahs a right to rely upon the face of Torrens title to dispense
with the need to inquire further, unless the party concerned
has actual knowledge of facts and circumstances that would
impel a reasonably cautious man to make such inquiry.
iii. Laches cannot be invoked by a buyer in bad faith. In failing to exercise a
minimum degree of ordinary prudence, Afable bought the lot at his own
risk and must now bear any prejudice or injury that the sale might bring.

RULING:

WHEREFORE, the petition for certiorari is hereby GRANTED, the challenged decision of the
Court of Appeals is SET ASIDE, and the decision of the trial court is REINSTATED.

SO ORDERED.

DISSENT:
NOTES:
i
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the acts and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate
assign or mortgage it and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership.