CO GIOK LUN, AS SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS V.

JOSE CO, AS
SUBSTITUTED BY HIS LEGAL HEIRS
G.R. No. 184454, August 03, 2011
CARPIO, J.:

DOCTRINE:
A custom must be proved as a fact according to the rules of evidence
FACTS:
The facts showed two properties, the Gubat and the Barcelona property, co-owned by
brothers Co Giok Lun and Co Bon Fieng, the father of respondent Jose Co. The Regional
Trial Court affirmed in favor of the petitioners, but was reversed and set aside by the
Court of Appeals. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration which was denied,
hence, this petition for review on certiorari.

Petitioners claimed that Lun and Fieng co-owned the Gubat and Barcelona property,
and are partners of the Philippine Honest and Company. They also insisted that Gubat
property was named under Fieng because of the Chinese customs that properties are
normally placed in the name of the eldest son. In contrast, respondents claimed that
the properties were exclusively owned by their father, and there was no partnership
between their father and Lun.

ISSUE:
Whether or not the CA erred in holding that no co-ownership existed between Lun and
Fieng over the Gubat and Barcelona properties and in declaring Fieng as the exclusive
owner of both properties.

RULING:
No. Petitioners failed to substantiate their claim of co-ownership over the Gubat and
the Barcelona properties. They also failed to prove the Chinese custom, that the eldest
son of the family is normally placed as the purchaser of a property, as a fact. The action
for partition cannot be acted upon since petitioners failed to establish any rightful
interest in the properties. Thus, respondents, as legal heirs of Fieng, are entitled to the
exclusive ownership of the Gubat and the Barcelona property.