Republic v. Baltazar-Ramirez G.R. No. 148103, July 27, 2006
Republic v. Baltazar-Ramirez G.R. No.
148103, July 27, 2006
Doctrine: It is basic that an action for partition implies that the property is still owned in common. Here,
respondent and her siblings are no longer co- owners. The lots have been sold to petitioner Republic, a third
person. The juridical condition of coownership of things or right is terminated: (1) by the consolidation in only
one of the owner of all the shares of the others; (2) by the destruction of the thing or the loss of the right (of
co-ownership); (3) by prescription in favor of a third person; and (4) by the partition which converts into
certain and definite parts the respective undivided shares of the co-owners. Here, it is clear that upon the sale
of the lots by respondent’s brothers and sisters to petitioner, the right of coownership among them ceased or
was lost. We have held that there is juridical dissolution of co- ownership when the thing is sold, either
publicly or privately, to third persons.
A co-ownership is terminated by prescription in favor of a third person. Under Article 1141 of the Civil Code,
real actions over immovables prescribe after 30 years.
Facts: Rosa Baltazar-Ramirez filed a complaint for recovery of hereditary shares against Republic of the
Philippines, represented by the Air Transportation Office, at the RTC Branch 27 Lapu-lapu City.
Petitioner purchased lots in Lapu-lapu City, including Lot 902 and Lot 2350, with a combined area 180,836
sqm to be used for construction of the Mactan-Cebu International Airport. These lots were purchased from
the children of Gavino Baltazar (father of Rosa, died instestate), namely – Magdalena, Cirila, Bibiana,
Anastacio, Isabel, Bernarda, Simeona, and Videl, all surnamed Baltazar evidenced by a deed of extrajudicial
settlement of estate and sale.
Rosa, the youngest among Gavino’s children, did not take part in the said execution. Not having sold her 1/9
share, 20,042.88 sqm, she has the right to acquire the same from the petition to which the petitioner readily
give respondent as it is part of an unused portion.
Petitioner, through the Mactan-Cebu International Airport Authority, denied the material allegations of the
complaint, claiming it has no knowledge whether respondent is indeed Gavino’s child; and that the ownership
of the lots has long been vested in the government through prescription. After the sale in 1957, the
government has been in actual and continuous possession of the lots in the concept of an owner for more than
30 years.
Trial court dismissed the complaint of Rosa holding that her share in the inheritance was repudiated by her
brothers and sisters as shown by their statement in the executed document. Respondent’s recourse is against
her siblings and co-heirs. Her inaction of 34 years constitute laches.
CA reversed the trial court’s judgment and held that there is no sufficient evidence showing that the
respondent’s brothers and sisters repudiated her share in the inheritance. Respondent’s recourse is against
her siblings and co-heirs. Petitioner has become a co-owner of the lots with respondent, her share being 1/9
of the area. And finally, an action for partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches.
Issue: Whether or not the co-ownership was dissolved when the property was sold.
Ruling: Yes, there is juridical dissolution of co-ownership when the property is sold, either publicly or
privately, to third persons.
Here, it is clear that upon the sale of the lots by respondent’s brothers and sisters to petitioner, the right of co-
ownership among them ceased or was lost. (Please see doctrine above)
Records show that the lots were sold in 1957, while respondent’s complaint was filed with the trial court only
in 1991, or after 34 years. Since 1957, petitioner has been in open, adverse and exclusive possession of the lots
in the concept of owner. Under Article 1141 of the Civil Code, real actions over immovables prescribe after 30
years.
Considering that petitioner has purchased the lots in good faith and for value, and has been in continuous
possession thereof for more than 30 years, it has acquired the right of ownership to the exclusion of herein
respondent. If at all, her suit should be against her siblings who deprived her of her lawful share through
fraud.