The Supreme Court ruled that even when property is co-owned due to inheritance, one heir can acquire full ownership through **acquisitive prescription** if they openly and adversely possess the land for a specified period. This means that if one heir acts as the sole owner for many years, without the other heirs objecting, they can legally claim the property as their own. The key is proving clear actions of ownership and that the other heirs were aware of this claim, solidifying the legal basis for claiming the land, thus shifting the rights over the property to a single party.

Can a Sibling’s Claim Trump a Shared Inheritance? The Restar Family Saga

This case involves a parcel of land in Aklan originally owned by Emilio Restar, who died in 1935 leaving eight children as his heirs. One of the children, Flores Restar, took possession of the land, secured a tax declaration in his name in 1960, and acted as the owner. Decades later, some of Flores’ siblings and their heirs sued, claiming their share of the inherited property. The legal question at the heart of the case is whether Flores, and subsequently his heirs, acquired sole ownership of the property through acquisitive prescription, despite the initial co-ownership.

The court looked at **Article 494 of the New Civil Code**, which generally states that no co-owner is obligated to remain in co-ownership, and each can demand partition of the jointly-owned property. However, the article also specifies an important exception: “No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.” This means that while a co-owner can eventually claim sole ownership, they must first clearly demonstrate that they no longer recognize the co-ownership and are claiming the property exclusively for themselves. This is where the concept of repudiation becomes essential.

The court differentiated between **ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription**. Ordinary acquisitive prescription requires possession in good faith and with just title for ten years. Since Flores Restar didn’t have a just title initially, the court focused on extraordinary acquisitive prescription. **Article 1137 of the New Civil Code** states: “Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.” This meant that if Flores possessed the land openly, continuously, and adversely for 30 years, he could become the sole owner, even without initially having a valid title.

The Court emphasized that simply possessing the land wasn’t enough. Flores needed to perform acts that clearly communicated his intent to exclude the other co-owners. The court pointed to several key actions by Flores. Securing a tax declaration in his name in 1960 served as a public declaration of his claim of ownership, this was a decisive move, changing the tax liabilities to a sole proprietor. His actions demonstrated that he was acting as the sole owner. Moreover, Flores also executed a joint affidavit asserting his ownership. Additionally, he paid real estate taxes and irrigation fees without any contribution from his siblings. These acts, taken together, demonstrated a clear and unmistakable intent to claim the property as his own, meeting the threshold for adverse possession. In contrast, the other heirs did not actively manage the land.

The respondents’ claim that they received a small share of the harvest from the land was dismissed by the court as insignificant. The court also highlighted the long period of time that passed between Flores’ initial claim and the filing of the lawsuit. The fact that the other heirs waited nearly 40 years before taking legal action undermined their claim of co-ownership and reinforced the conclusion that they were aware of Flores’ adverse claim.

Therefore, the Court ruled in favor of Flores’ heirs, concluding that they had acquired ownership of the land through extraordinary acquisitive prescription. This case underscores the importance of actively protecting one’s property rights, especially in situations involving co-ownership. The law recognizes that inaction can lead to the loss of those rights to someone who openly and consistently asserts ownership.

FAQs

What is acquisitive prescription?	It is a way to acquire ownership of property by possessing it openly, continuously, and adversely for a certain period.
What’s the difference between ordinary and extraordinary acquisitive prescription?	Ordinary requires good faith and just title for 10 years, while extraordinary requires adverse possession for 30 years without needing good faith or title.
What is repudiation in the context of co-ownership?	Repudiation is when a co-owner clearly acts in a way that shows they no longer recognize the co-ownership and are claiming the property solely for themselves.
What evidence did Flores Restar present to support his claim of ownership?	He secured a tax declaration in his name, executed a joint affidavit asserting ownership, and paid real estate taxes without contribution from the co-owners.
How long did Flores Restar possess the land before the other heirs filed a lawsuit?	Nearly 40 years passed between Flores taking ownership and the lawsuit.
What happens if co-owners fail to protect their claim of the property?	They could forfeit their ownership claim if one of the owners meet requirements for acquisitive prescription
Is paying taxes sufficient to establish ownership of the property?	No, tax declarations are only considered as strong evidence when couples with other indicators of adverse possession.
What should co-owners do if another co-owner start possessing it exclusively?	Take appropriate and timely legal action as soon as one owner clearly demonstrates a claim of exclusive ownership.

The *Heirs of Flores Restar* case offers valuable insights into how property rights evolve within families and the critical importance of protecting one’s inheritance. By asserting exclusive control over the land for over three decades and making his intentions undeniably clear, Flores Restar effectively transformed a shared inheritance into his private dominion. The outcome hinged on the lack of action from the siblings, reinforcing the significance of monitoring one’s legal rights and promptly addressing any challenges to property ownership.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: HEIRS OF FLORES RESTAR VS. HEIRS OF DOLORES R. CICHON, G.R. No. 161720, November 22, 2005