G.R. No. 194260 -

Ruling

Accordingly, Feliciano was awarded a free patent thereon for which Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. P-10737 was issued. They also averred that the cause of action in the complaint filed by the heirs of Hermogenes, which questioned the validity of OCT No. P-10737, prescribed after the lapse of one year from its issuance on November 29, 1989. [6] Ruling of the RTC On December 23, 2008, the RTC rendered a Decision dismissing the complaint filed by the heirs of Hermogenes. The RTC opined that the heirs of Hermogenes failed to show that the subject property is owned by Macaria, stating that tax declarations and receipts in Macaria's name are not conclusive evidence of ownership. The RTC further held that even if Macaria owned the subject property, the heirs of Hermogenes failed to show that Hermogenes had the right to succeed over the estate of Macaria. Ruling of the CA On appeal, the CA, in its Decision [7] dated October 22, 2010, reversed and set aside the RTC's Decision dated December 23, 2008. The CA found that the RTC, in hastily dismissing the complaint for partition, failed to determine first whether the subject property is indeed co-owned by the heirs of Hermogenes and the heirs of Feliciano. The CA pointed out that: [A] review of the records of the case shows that in Feliciano's application for free patent, he acknowledged that the source of his claim of possession over the subject property was Hermogenes's possession of the real property in peaceful, open, continuous, and adverse manner and more importantly, in the concept of an owner, since 1944. Feliciano's claim of sole possession in his application for free patent did not therefore extinguish the fact of co-ownership as claimed by the children of Hermogenes. [8] (Citation omitted and emphasis deleted) Accordingly, the CA, considering that the parties are co-owners of the subject property, ruled that the RTC should have conducted the appropriate proceedings for partition. [9] Aggrieved, the heirs of Feliciano filed with the Court this petition for review alleging that the CA erred in ruling that there is co-ownership between them and the heirs of Hermogenes. The heirs of Feliciano likewise averred that the CA also erred in ordering the partition of the subject property since it amounts to a collateral attack on the validity of OCT No. P-10737. [10] Ruling of the Court The petition is denied. As pointed out by the CA, the RTC overlooked the fact that the subject property is co-owned by the parties herein, having inherited the same from Hermogenes. Feliciano's free patent application indicated that he merely tacked his possession of the subject property from Hermogenes, his father, who held the property in peaceful, open, continuous, and adverse manner in the concept of an owner since 1944. This is an implicit recognition of the fact that Feliciano merely co-owns the subject property with the other heirs of Hermogenes. Indeed, the heirs of Feliciano have not presented any evidence th