Scribd
Upload
199 views2 pages

Adille Vs CA

Rustico Adille claimed exclusive ownership over land originally owned by his mother Felisa. However, Felisa had children from two marriages, making Rustico and the plaintiffs co-heirs to the property. When Felisa sold the land with a repurchase clause, Rustico alone redeemed the property after her death. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) by solely redeeming the property, Rustico constituted himself as a negotiatorum gestor on behalf of his co-heirs; and (2) a co-owner may only acquire his own share of commonly held property, so Rustico did not become exclusive owner by redeeming the whole property.

Uploaded by

Gabe Bedana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
199 views2 pages

Adille Vs CA

Rustico Adille claimed exclusive ownership over land originally owned by his mother Felisa. However, Felisa had children from two marriages, making Rustico and the plaintiffs co-heirs to the property. When Felisa sold the land with a repurchase clause, Rustico alone redeemed the property after her death. The Supreme Court ruled that (1) by solely redeeming the property, Rustico constituted himself as a negotiatorum gestor on behalf of his co-heirs; and (2) a co-owner may only acquire his own share of commonly held property, so Rustico did not become exclusive owner by redeeming the whole property.

Uploaded by

Gabe Bedana
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Adille vs CA

G.R. No. L-44546 January 29, 1988


Facts:
The land in question located in Legaspi City originally belonged to one Felisa Alzul
as her own private property; she married twice in her lifetime; the first, with one
Bernabe Adille, with whom she had as an only child, defendant Rustico Adille; in her
second marriage with one Procopio Asejo, her children, the plaintiffs.
Felisa sold the property in pacto de retro to 3rd persons, period of repurchase being
3 years, but she died in without being able to redeem and after her death, but
during the period of redemption, herein Adille repurchased, by himself alone, and
after that, he executed a deed of extra-judicial partition representing himself to be
the only heir and child of his mother Felisa with the consequence that he was able
to secure title in his name alone also, so that the title in the name of his mother was
transferred to his name; that was why after some efforts of compromise had failed,
his half-brothers and sisters filed a case for partition with accounting on the position
that he was only a trustee on an implied trust when he redeemed, but as it also
turned out that one of plaintiffs, Emeteria Asejo was occupying a portion, defendant
counterclaimed for her to vacate said land.
Issue:
*Whether or nor Rustico had constituted himself a negotiorum gestor.
Whether or not a co-owner may acquire exclusive ownership over the property held
in common.
Held:
-Yes.
The Supreme Court held that in taking over the property, he did so either on behalf
of his co-heirs, in which event, he had constituted himself a negotiorum
gestor under Article 2144 of the Civil Code, or for his exclusive benefit, in which
case, he is guilty of fraud, and must act as trustee, the private respondents being
the beneficiaries, under the Article 1456. The evidence, of course, points to the
second alternative the petitioner having asserted claims of exclusive ownership
over the property and having acted in fraud of his co-heirs. He cannot therefore be
said to have assume the mere management of the property abandoned by his coheirs, the situation Article 2144 of the Code contemplates. In any case, as the
respondent Court itself affirms, the result would be the same whether it is one or
the other. The petitioner would remain liable to the Private respondents, his coheirs.
-No.
The right to repurchase may be exercised by a co-owner with respect to his share

alone. Although Rustico Adille redeemed the property in its entirety, shouldering the
expenses did not make him the owner of the whole property.

You might also like