FACTS:

In this case, the petitioners filed a complaint for reconveyance of their shares in co-ownership property against the private respondents. The property in question was originally part of the "Hacienda de Mandaue" owned by the Seminario de San Carlos de Cebu. The petitioners are descendants of Manuel Ceniza, while the private respondents are descendants of Sofia Ceniza. After the property was subdivided for resale in 1929, Jose Ceniza and Vicente Dabon jointly purchased Lot 627 and agreed to have it registered in Dabon's name for convenience. Upon Dabon's death, his children succeeded to his possession of a portion of the land. The present controversy arose when the private respondents refused to convey Lots Nos. 627-B and 627-C to the petitioners, claiming that Dabon was the sole and exclusive owner of Lot 627. The trial court ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the private respondents to convey the lots to them. However, on appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision, stating that the petitioners' right of action had already prescribed. The petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that prescription did not run in their favor because a trust relation and co-ownership existed between the parties. The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners, ruling that prescription did not apply as long as the co-ownership was recognized. The court reinstated the decision of the trial court and ordered the private respondents to convey the lots to the petitioners.

ISSUES:

1. Whether the registration of the title of the land in the name of one of the co-owners constituted a repudiation of the co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription.

RULING:

1. The Supreme Court ruled that the registration of the title of the land in the name of one co-owner did not constitute a repudiation of co-ownership for purposes of acquisitive prescription. The Court upheld the decision of the trial court, which ordered the private respondents to execute deeds of conveyance of the lots in favor of the petitioners.

PRINCIPLES:

• No prescription shall run in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-heirs as long as the co-ownership is recognized, whether expressly or impliedly. (Paragraph 5, Article 494, Civil Code)

• If two or more persons agree to purchase property and the legal title is taken in the name of one of them for the benefit of all, a trust is created by force of law in favor of the others in proportion to their interests. (Article 1452, Civil Code)

• The possession of a trustee is not adverse and cannot ripen into a title by prescription unless all the elements of adverse possession are present, which include unequivocal acts of repudiation, knowledge of such acts of repudiation by the beneficiaries, and clear and conclusive evidence thereof.