Sie sind auf Seite 1von 1

Bailon-Casilao vs.

CA

In this case, there was a parcel of land co-owned by 6 Bailon siblings each owning 1/6 share. Two of
the siblings, Rosalia and Gaudencio, sold a portion of the land of 16, 283 sqm to Donato Delgado. Rosalia
sold the remainder of the land to Ponciana de Lanuza. Lanuza also acquired the 16, 283 sqm from
Delgado. The husband of Ponciana, through SPA given by her, sold the two parceld of land to Celestino
Afable Sr. (herein respondent). All the deeds of sale were registered under Act. 496.

The other co-owners (Delia and heirs of Nenita) or the petitioners herein then filed a case for recovery
of property with damages against Afable. Afable claimed that he already acquired such land through
prescription and contended that petitioners were guilty of laches.

The principal issue to be resolved is WON the petitioners are already barred by prescription and laches.

SC has already ruled in other cases that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will
affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale (Art. 493
CC). The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recovery of
possession but the division of the common property (Partition). Neither recovery of possession nor
restitution can be granted since the buyers are legitimate possessors in joint ownership of the common
property claimed.

SC ruled that prescription cannot be invoked. According to Art. 494 of the Civil Code, No co-owner shall
be obliged to remain the co-ownership. Such co-owner may demand at anytime the partition of the
things owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. Thus, an action for partition is
imprescriptible since no prescription like in favor of a co-owner or co-heir so long as he expressly or
impliedly recognizes co-ownership. Also No title registered under Torrens system shall be acquired by
prescription or adverse possession. Prescription will not lie in favor of Afable against the Bailons who
remain the registered owners of the parcel of land.

Laches cannot also be invoked since not the 2nd and 3rd elements are not present.

1) Conduct on the part of the defendant or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the
situation of whichcomplaint is made and for which the complainant seeks a remedy;

2) Delay in asserting the corporations complainant's rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or noticeof the defendant's conduct and having been afforded an opportunity to
institute suit;

3) Lack of knowledge or notice on the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert
the right onwhich he bases his suit; and,

4) Injury or prejudice to the defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant, or the
suit is not heldto be barred

The petitioners did not have knowledge of the deed of sales and wasnt afforded an opportunity to bring
suit. It was only when Delia returned in 1981 that she found out about sales and immediately filed the
action. The respondent also has knowledge that the land he bought was co-owned by petitioners
especially that his wife is a relative of the petitioners. Afable is not a buyer in good faith.