CIVIL LAW: PRESCRIPTION AMONG CO-OWNERS (Art. 494 of the Civil Code of the Philippines)

Prescription among co-owners is a nuanced topic in property law under the Civil Code of the Philippines. It involves the principle of acquisitive prescription, where a co-owner may acquire ownership of the entire co-owned property to the exclusion of the others under certain conditions. Below is a detailed breakdown of the legal principles and requirements:

1. Relevant Provision of Law

The governing provision is Article 494 of the Civil Code, which provides:

"No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned."
The second paragraph provides the limitation: "A co-owner shall have no right to prescription against his co-owners so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership."

2. General Rule

A co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the shares of the other co-owners in the co-owned property. This prohibition is based on the principle that possession by a co-owner is generally presumed to be in the concept of co-ownership and not adverse to the interests of the other co-owners.

3. Exceptions to the Rule

A co-owner may acquire ownership over the shares of the other co-owners by prescription under the following conditions:

a. Repudiation of the Co-Ownership

For acquisitive prescription to commence, there must be a clear and unequivocal repudiation of the co-ownership by one co-owner. This repudiation transforms the possession from being in the name of the co-owners to being adverse to them.

Requirements for Repudiation:
- Notice: The repudiation must be brought to the knowledge of the other co-owners.
- Clear and Unequivocal Acts: These acts must clearly indicate that the co-owner intends to hold the property exclusively and deny the co-ownership.
- Evidence: Repudiation must be supported by competent evidence, such as:
  - Public acts of ownership inconsistent with co-ownership (e.g., executing a deed of sale over the entire property, registering the property in the co-owner’s name).
  - Refusal to recognize the rights of other co-owners when confronted.

b. Exclusive Possession

The co-owner claiming adverse possession must have been in exclusive, continuous, and notorious possession of the property under claim of ownership. This possession must be:

Exclusive: Sole possession without acknowledgment of the rights of other co-owners.
Notorious: Publicly known, such that it is apparent to the other co-owners.
Uninterrupted: Possession must not be interrupted by any acts of recognition of the co-ownership.

c. Lapse of Time

The required period for acquisitive prescription depends on whether possession is in good faith or bad faith:

Ordinary Prescription (Good Faith): 10 years of continuous, adverse possession.
Extraordinary Prescription (Bad Faith): 30 years of uninterrupted adverse possession.

4. Legal Implications

If a co-owner successfully acquires ownership by prescription:

The co-owner who repudiated the co-ownership becomes the sole owner of the property.
The other co-owners lose their shares, and their action to recover the property is barred by prescription.

However, in the absence of clear and convincing proof of repudiation and exclusive possession, the presumption of co-ownership remains, and prescription cannot be invoked.

5. Case Law Interpretations

Philippine jurisprudence provides extensive guidance on prescription among co-owners. Notable rulings include:

a. Heirs of Gregorio Lopez v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 126498)

The Court ruled that mere possession by one co-owner does not constitute repudiation of co-ownership. Possession is deemed to be for the benefit of all co-owners unless there is clear repudiation.

b. Vda. de Cabrera v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 103577)

The Court emphasized the need for public and overt acts of repudiation. In this case, the possession of the property by one co-owner was deemed insufficient to establish adverse possession as no notice of repudiation was proven.

c. Adille v. Court of Appeals (G.R. No. L-50754)

The Supreme Court held that registration of the property in the name of one co-owner may constitute repudiation if accompanied by notice to the other co-owners.

6. Practical Considerations

Documentation and Evidence: Any co-owner claiming prescription must substantiate their adverse possession with strong evidence, including tax declarations, deeds, and testimony.
Partition Remedies: Co-owners who wish to terminate the co-ownership without resorting to adverse possession may demand judicial or extrajudicial partition.

7. Limitations

Action for Partition: Co-owners retain the right to demand partition of the property at any time during the co-ownership, unless barred by prescription or waiver.
Recognition of Co-Ownership: Any act that implies recognition of the co-ownership, such as sharing in profits or paying property taxes jointly, interrupts the period for prescription.

Conclusion

While prescription among co-owners is possible, it is the exception rather than the rule. Clear, unequivocal repudiation and compliance with strict legal standards are necessary to transform possession into ownership. Courts scrutinize such claims closely to ensure that co-ownership rights are not unjustly extinguished.