Pensader vs. Pensader

An action for partition among co-heirs prescribes when one of them, or their successors, possesses the property continuously, publicly, peacefully, and under a claim of ownership for the period required by law to acquire title by prescription (30 years under the Old Civil Code), even if the plaintiffs are entitled to the property as heirs.

Canuto Pensader acquired the disputed coconut land from Eulalio Punio while living maritally with Maria Revelar. He died in 1892 without leaving any forced heir. His heirs included his nephews (the plaintiffs) and his niece Alejandra Pensader (defendant). In 1892, Canuto allegedly executed a donation inter vivos dividing the land between Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader. Following Canuto's death, possession was taken by Maria and Alejandra (married to Vicente Revelar), and eventually passed to their successor Silverio P. Revelar, who cultivated the land exclusively for decades.

• Filed in RTC — Plaintiffs filed an action for partition.
• RTC Decision — The lower court absolved the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs' action had prescribed and that the defendants' possession was adverse.
• Appealed to SC — Plaintiffs appealed, assigning multiple errors regarding the characterization of possession and the exclusion of evidence.

• Nature of Action: Action for partition of a coconut land allegedly held in common as undivided inheritance from Canuto Pensader.
• Parties:
  • Plaintiffs: Isidro Pensader et al. (nephews of Canuto Pensader).
  • Defendants: Alejandra Pensader (niece of Canuto) and Silverio P. Revelar (son of Alejandra and Vicente Revelar).
  • Origin of Title: Canuto Pensader acquired the land from Eulalio Punio; died intestate in 1892 without forced heirs.
  • The Alleged Donation: In 1892, Canuto allegedly donated one-half of the land to Maria Revelar (his paramour) and one-half to Alejandra Pensader.
• Chain of Possession:
  • Immediately after Canuto's death (end of 1892), Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader (with husband Vicente Revelar) entered possession and cultivated the land.
  • Upon Vicente Revelar's death, his heirs extrajudicially partitioned the land, allotting it to Silverio P. Revelar.
  • Maria Revelar waived her share in favor of Silverio.
  • Silverio cultivated, improved, and enjoyed the fruits exclusively.
  • Character of Possession: The possession by Silverio and his predecessors was continuous, public, peaceful, and under a claim of ownership for over 30 years, originating from the alleged 1892 donation.
  • Key Event in 1905: Plaintiffs made an extrajudicial demand for partition which was not obtained; defendants continued in exclusive possession thereafter.
  • Exclusivity: No showing that possession was in common with plaintiffs; the origin of possession (the donation) explained its adverse and exclusive character.

• The lower court erred in holding that the parties held the land in common.
• The lower court erred in finding that Silverio P. Revelar's possession (and that of his predecessors) for over 30 years was adverse to the plaintiffs.
• The lower court erred in holding that the plaintiffs' action for partition had prescribed.
• The lower court erred in finding that Canuto Pensader transferred title to Fr. Pablo Pajarillo when in fact the latter was merely commissioned to distribute the property to the heirs.
• The lower court erred in refusing to admit parol evidence regarding admissions made by Alejandra Pensader, her husband, and Vicente Revelar concerning their title to the land.

• (Implied from the decision) That they and their predecessors had been in continuous, public, peaceful, and adverse possession under a claim of ownership for over 30 years based on the 1892 donation, thereby barring the plaintiffs' action by prescription.

• Procedural Issues: N/A
• Substantive Issues:
  • Whether the plaintiffs' action for partition had prescribed by reason of the defendants' adverse possession for more than 30 years.
  • Whether the possession exercised by the defendants and their predecessors was adverse (as opposed to being held in common with the plaintiffs).
  • Whether the alleged donation to Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader—though insufficiently established by documentary evidence—could characterize the possession as adverse.
  • Whether the lower court erred in excluding parol evidence regarding admissions by the defendants as to their title.

• Procedural: N/A
• Substantive:
  • Prescription Bar: The action for partition has prescribed. The possession by Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors (Maria Revelar and Alejandra Pensader) was continuous, public, peaceful, and under a claim of ownership for over 30 years, satisfying the requirements for acquisitive prescription.
  • Adverse Character of Possession: The possession was adverse, not in common. The origin of the possession—the 1892 donation—though not sufficiently proven by documentary evidence, served as a circumstance explaining the exclusive character of the defendants' possession from its inception.
  • Effect of 1905 Demand: The plaintiffs' extrajudicial demand for partition in 1905, which was not followed by actual partition, did not interrupt the running of prescription; the defendants' continued exclusive possession thereafter confirmed the adverse nature of their holding.
  • Other Assignments of Error: The contentions regarding Fr. Pablo Pajarillo and the exclusion of parol evidence lack sufficient merit to alter the judgment.

• Adverse Possession as Bar to Action for Partition — Possession by one claiming to be a co-heir becomes adverse to the other co-heirs when it is continuous, public, peaceful, and under a claim of ownership for the prescriptive period (30 years under the Old Civil Code). Such possession bars the latter's right to seek judicial partition.
• Character of Possession Determined by Circumstances — The nature of possession is determined by the acts and intentions of the possessor. A claim of ownership based on a donation (even if imperfectly proven or insufficient to transfer title formally) can characterize possession as adverse from its inception, provided the possession is exclusive and not in common with the other claimants.
• Prescription of Action for Partition — An action for partition among co-heirs is a personal action that prescribes when one of them has possessed the property adversely for the period required to acquire title by prescription.

• "The possession of this Silverio P. Revelar, together with that of his parents and aunt Maria Revelar, dates back to thirty years ago, and is continuous, public, peaceful, and under claim of ownership."
• "These facts, under the circumstances shown by the evidence as a whole, are sufficient to establish the adverse character of the possession which the defendant Silverio P. Revelar and his predecessors in interest had been exercising over the land in question, and, therefore, to justify the holding that the action brought by the plaintiffs has already prescribed."

• Old Civil Code (Spanish Civil Code), provisions on Acquisitive Prescription — Implicitly applied through the SC's reference to the 30-year period required for prescription of real property (Article 1955, Spanish Civil Code).
• Old Civil Code, provisions on Partition — Implicitly applied regarding the nature of the action for partition among co-heirs and its susceptibility to prescription.

• N/A (Arautto, C.J., Johnson, Street, Malcolm, Avancena, Ostrand, and Johns, JJ., concurred without separate opinions).