G.R. NO. 152652 - TEODORO STA. ANA, VS. LOURDES PANLASIGUE, JULIETA P. SANTIAGO AND SPOUSES IRENEO STA. ANA AND CANDIDA JARMIN.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE, the Decision appealed from is REVERSED and SET ASIDE. In lieu thereof, judgment is rendered ordering defendants to reconvey to intervenors-appellees their 1/20 share of the property or its equivalent in money. The case filed by plaintiff-appellee Teodoro Sta. Ana is DISMISSED . With costs against the plaintiff-appellee. [17] (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) Hence, the present petition for review on certiorari filed by Teodoro (hereafter petitioner), raising the following arguments: The extra-judicial partition is null and void. The deed of sale between Anatolia Sta. Ana and Respondents Panlasigue and Santiago is null and void. The right of Petitioner to question the title of Respondents Panlasigue and Santiago over the subject property has neither prescribed nor been barred by laches. [18] The first and second arguments of petitioner fail. The finding of the appellate court that the challenged deeds are not null and void is in accordance with law and evidence, as reflected in the discussion above. Indeed, that the living children of Petronilo joined Anatolia in the execution of the documents clearly shows that they were co-owners of the lots. As such, they were at liberty to alienate their respective shares of the lots. Respecting the last argument on laches, petitioner maintains that he had "no knowledge of the execution on his behalf by his wife" of the challenged documents, he being then out of the country. At the witness stand, however, petitioner declared on direct examination as follows: Q. Mr. Sta. Ana, when you learned that lot 13-A was sold to defendant Lourdes Panlasique and Julieta Santiago, what did you do? A. I was abroad at that time and when I arrived what I saw was the house was being constructed already. [19] And on cross examination, he admitted that his wife signed for him in the documents but that she was forced to do so. [20] In any event, petitioner contends that even assuming arguendo that he is guilty of laches, the case had not prescribed, he citing Mariategui v. Court of Appeals [21] which held: x x x Corollarily, prescription does not run against private respondents with respect to the filing of the action for partition so long as the heirs for whose benefit prescription is invoked, have not expressly or impliedly repudiated the co-ownership. In other words , prescription of an action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated by the co-owner . Otherwise stated, a co-owner cannot acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners absent a clear repudiation of co-ownership duly communicated to the other co-owners. Furthermore, an action to demand partition is imprescriptible and cannot be barred by laches. x x x [22] (Emphasis and underscoring by petitioner) Petitioner's citation of Mariategui is misplaced. His complaint is not one for partition, but for reconveyance. Jurisprudence of course dictates that the "[t]he doctrine of laches should never be applied earlie