De Castro vs. Echarri

A co-heir’s action to recover inherited property from a third-party transferee who acquired it in good faith from another co-heir possessing the property as sole owner for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription is an action for recovery pro solido, distinct from an imprescriptible action for partition, and is subject to extinctive prescription.

Antonio Perez purchased the disputed lot in 1868. He died in 1881, leaving his widow Angela Echarri and their daughter Luisa Perez Echarri as his recognized successors. Angela Echarri retained the muniments of title and exclusively possessed the property for seven years, even selling it with right of repurchase in 1888 and later recovering it. In 1904, Luisa Perez, having reached majority and enjoyed undisturbed possession for twenty-three years after her father’s death, sold the lot to Inocente Echarri, who constructed a house on it. In 1908, plaintiffs Gregoria de Castro and Mercedes Calderon initiated a suit claiming a five-twelfths share of the property as alleged granddaughters of Antonio Perez from a purported first marriage to Eugenia Garcia.

• Acquisition by Antonio Perez: On December 10, 1868, Antonio Perez acquired a parcel of land in Ermita, Manila, by public deed of sale. The deed did not mention any marriage.
• Death and succession: Perez died on May 15, 1881. He was survived by his widow Angela Echarri and their daughter Luisa Perez Echarri. A previous marriage to Maria Meneses in 1872 had produced a son, but both wife and son predeceased Perez and did not figure in the succession. A will existed but could not be produced.
• Post-death possession: Angela Echarri held the title documents and possessed the lot. In 1888, she sold it with right of repurchase, describing it as property acquired by her deceased husband; she later recovered it.
• Sale to defendant: On March 28, 1904, Luisa Perez Echarri, having reached majority and after twenty-three years of undisputed possession, sold the lot to Inocente Echarri, who built a house worth ₱8,000 on the property.
• Plaintiffs’ claim: On July 22, 1908, Gregoria de Castro and Mercedes Calderon filed suit, alleging they were daughters of Maria, who was a daughter of Antonio Perez from a first marriage to Eugenia Garcia. They claimed five-twelfths of the lot as co-heirs. No evidence was presented to prove the alleged first marriage, the legitimate filiation of Maria and Justa to Perez, or the lawful filiation of plaintiffs to Maria. Plaintiffs themselves resided in Manila and were never abroad.
• Defendant’s reliance on title: The defendant relied on the chain of registered public deeds showing Luisa Perez as the sole legal heir and owner, her exclusive possession for over twenty-seven years, and his own acquisition in good faith and for value.

• Good faith and clear title: Petitioner maintained that he purchased the lot from Luisa Perez, who was the only recognized heir and had possessed the property as sole owner for over twenty-three years without any claim from others; the chain of public documents disclosed no defect in her title, and he was not required to inquire beyond the registrable title.
• Failure of proof of filiation: Petitioner argued that plaintiffs did not prove the alleged first marriage of Antonio Perez to Eugenia Garcia, the legitimate birth of Maria and Justa to Perez, or their own filiation as lawful daughters of Maria.
• Prescription: Petitioner contended that even if plaintiffs were co-heirs, their right of action had prescribed because Luisa Perez’s exclusive possession as owner and the subsequent purchase in good faith had matured into ownership by prescription, the action being one for recovery and not the imprescriptible action for partition.

• Right as co-heirs: Respondents claimed they were lawful granddaughters of Antonio Perez and thus co-heirs with a right to a share of the inheritance; they asserted that the property, never having been partitioned, was held in common, and they could recover their aliquot portion from any possessor.
• Imprescriptibility: Respondents implicitly invoked the imprescriptibility of the action for partition among co-heirs under Article 1965 of the Civil Code, asserting that no period of possession could bar their claim to their hereditary share.

• Nature of the action: Whether the suit was an action for partition of inheritance among co-heirs (imprescriptible) or an action for recovery of property possessed pro solido (prescriptible).
• Prescription: Whether the right of action had prescribed, given the defendant’s predecessor’s uninterrupted possession as sole owner for over twenty years and the defendant’s acquisition in good faith.
• Good faith purchaser protection: Whether a third party who acquires property in good faith from a sole heir in exclusive possession may be evicted after twenty-seven years by alleged undisclosed co-heirs.

• Nature of the action and prescription: The suit was classified as an action for recovery of property held pro solido by a third party, not an action for partition among co-heirs. The imprescriptibility of the partition action under Article 1965 of the Civil Code does not apply where one co-heir has possessed the inheritance as owner for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription. Because Luisa Perez had possessed the lot exclusively as sole owner for over twenty-three years and the defendant acquired it in good faith and for value, any right of action plaintiffs may have had was extinguished by prescription. Ordinary acquisitive prescription of ten years under Article 1957 was available to the defendant, the plaintiffs having never been abroad.
• Good faith purchaser protection: A purchaser who buys from the sole apparent heir under a clear chain of title and in good faith cannot be disturbed after twenty-seven years by a claim of undisclosed co-heirs. The defendant acquired the lot by just title, regularly, and for consideration, and was protected both by his status as a good-faith purchaser and by the prescription that had already vested title in his predecessor.

• Distinction between action for partition and action for recovery — Under Article 1965 of the Civil Code, the action to demand division of an inheritance (actio familiae erciscundae) is imprescriptible among co-heirs, but this imprescriptibility cannot be invoked when a co-heir has possessed the inheritance as exclusive owner for the period required to acquire it by prescription. The action for recovery of property possessed pro solido by a third party is distinct from the imprescriptible partition action and is subject to extinctive prescription.
• Prescription against co-heirs — A co-heir who possesses common property as sole owner for the statutory period, and a third-party transferee who acquires from such co-heir in good faith and with just title, may acquire ownership by prescription, thereby extinguishing the claims of other co-heirs. The right of action to recover the property prescribes in ten years if the claimant resides in the country.
• Requisites for prescription — (1) Possession in the concept of owner; (2) Good faith; (3) Just title; and (4) Lapse of the statutory period. Even if the title were defective, extraordinary prescription of twenty years, available when the claimants are not abroad, would vest ownership.

• “The ‘right to commence action’ having been prescribed, it applies to negative as well as positive prescription, since the right of action lapses as to the person who acquires the possessions or ownership as well as to the one who is liable to lose the ownership or possession.”
• “... the imprescriptibility of the action to demand the division of a succession ... can not be invoked when one of the co-heirs has possessed the inheritance as owner and for a period sufficient to acquire it by prescription, because such action necessarily arises from the possession in common or pro indiviso of the inheritance ... the action among coheirs or coowners to demand partition of the inheritance ... is distinct from the action for recovery involving ownership pro solido of the same fund, and if the question is one relating to the recovery of inherited property or a part of a common estate, and not of partition, the prohibition in said article is not applicable.”

• Supreme Court judgments of April 15, 1904, January 15, 1902, and June 22, 1904 (unnamed) — Cited as authority for the rule that the imprescriptible action for partition does not apply when a co-heir has possessed as sole owner for a prescriptive period, and that the action for recovery pro solido is distinct and prescriptible.
• 12 Manresa, Comentarios al Código Civil, 858 — Relied on for the doctrinal distinction between partition actions and recovery actions involving common property possessed pro solido by another.

• Article 1940, Spanish Civil Code — Prescription of ownership and other real rights; applied to uphold the principle that prescription can both vest and extinguish rights.
• Article 1957, Spanish Civil Code — Ordinary prescription of ten years for immovables when possession is in good faith and with just title; applied to the defendant’s acquisition through Luisa Perez.
• Article 1958, Spanish Civil Code — Extraordinary prescription of twenty years without need of title or good faith; noted as an alternative if the ten-year period were not satisfied.
• Article 1965, Spanish Civil Code — Imprescriptibility of partition actions among co-heirs and co-owners; given restrictive application, not extending to actions for recovery where the property is held pro solido by a third party.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, and Moreland, JJ., concurred.