EACH CO-OWNER MAY DEMAND FOR A PARTITION

Dear PAO,

Our family owns a vast tract of land which was being attended to by our former caretaker, Gilbert. Suddenly, we were surprised when he asked for its partition. He claimed that he is a co-owner of the land as evidenced by the certificate of title covering it. However, my father said that Gilbert cannot be considered a co-owner because he did not contribute to the purchase of the land. His name was merely included in the certificate of title because he was their caretaker. Does he have the right to demand a partition?

Teril

Dear Teril,

Simply put, a co-owner is a person who jointly owns a thing with another person. Article 484 of the New Civil Code of the Philippines provides that there is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. In addition to that, under the first paragraph of Article 494 of the same law, each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned.

Based on your brief narration of facts, Gilbert’s name appeared in the certificate of title. The Supreme Court pronounced that “it is a fundamental principle in land registration that the certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name appears therein. It becomes the best proof of ownership of a parcel of land. Such principle of indefeasibility has long been well-settled in this jurisdiction and it is only when the acquisition of the title is attended with fraud or bad faith that the doctrine finds no application.” (Rogelio Logrosa v. Spouses Cleofe and Cesar Azares, et al., GR 217611, March 27, 2019, penned by Associate Justice Alfredo Benjamin Caguioa) Thus, the fact that your former caretaker’s name is in the certificate of title is sufficient proof that he is a co-owner of the subject property, absent any allegation that his inclusion therein was secured by means of fraud or bad faith.

Let us assume that the caretaker indeed did not contribute to the payment of the purchase price. The Logrosa case provides that it does not necessarily mean that he could not become a co-owner of the subject land and compel partition. Section 1, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court provides: “A person having the right to compel the partition of real estate may do so as provided in this Rule, setting forth in his complaint the nature and extent of his title and an adequate description of the real estate of which partition is demanded and joining as defendants all other persons interested in the property.”

Finally, the Supreme Court enunciated in the same case that the law does not make a distinction as to how the co-owner derived his or her title, whether through gratuity or onerous consideration. In other words, a person who derived his title and was granted co-ownership rights through gratuity may compel partition.

The foregoing considered, Gilbert has the right to demand partition as a co-owner of the subject property.

We hope that we were able to answer your queries. Please be reminded that this advice is based solely on the facts you have narrated and our appreciation of the same. Our opinion may vary when other facts are changed or elaborated.