2/6/25, 11:29 PM Digest: Adille v. CA (G.R. No.
L-44546)
Adille v. CA
G.R. No. L-44546 (January 29, 1988)
Court affirms half-siblings' co-ownership of inherited land; joint consent needed for
ownership.
Facts:
The case revolves around a property dispute concerning Lot 14694 of the Cadastral Survey
of Albay, located in Legaspi City, which originally belonged to Felisa Alzul. Felisa was
married twice; her first marriage to Bernabe Adille produced one child, Rustico Adille (the
defendant), and her second marriage to Procopio Asejo produced several children, who are
the plaintiffs in this case. In 1939, Felisa sold the property in pacto de retro to third parties,
with a three-year period for repurchase. Felisa passed away in 1942 without redeeming the
property.
During the redemption period, Rustico Adille repurchased the property solely in his name
and later executed a deed of extrajudicial partition, claiming to be the only heir of Felisa.
This led to the issuance of Original Certificate of Title No. 21137 in his name in 1955. The
plaintiffs, who are Rustico's half-siblings, contended that Rustico acted as a trustee for
them when he redeemed the property and sought partition and accounting of the
property.
The trial court ruled in favor of Rustico, declaring him the absolute owner of the property
and dismissing the plaintiffs' claims. The plaintiffs appealed to the Court of Appeals, which
reversed the trial court's decision, leading Rustico to file a petition for certiorari to the
Supreme Court.
Legal Issues:
1. Can a co-owner acquire exclusive ownership over property held in common through
redemption?
https://signal.ph/digest/1263948237181913469?q=Adille+vs.+CA&k=1263948237181913469 1/3
2/6/25, 11:29 PM Digest: Adille v. CA (G.R. No. L-44546)
2. Did Rustico Adille act as a trustee for his half-siblings when he redeemed the
property?
3. Is the claim of the plaintiffs barred by prescription?
Arguments:
Petitioner (Rustico Adille): Rustico argued that he became the sole owner of the
property after redeeming it, as the other co-heirs failed to join him in the redemption
within the required period. He cited provisions of the Civil Code that allow a vendee a
retro the right to redeem the entire property.
Respondents (Emeteria Asejo and others): The plaintiffs contended that Rustico was
merely a trustee for them when he redeemed the property. They argued that his
actions were fraudulent, as he misrepresented himself as the sole heir in the affidavit
of extrajudicial settlement. They sought partition and accounting of the property,
asserting that Rustico's claim to exclusive ownership was invalid.
Court's Decision and Legal Reasoning:
The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, ruling that Rustico could
not claim exclusive ownership of the property despite redeeming it. The Court held that the
right of redemption could only be exercised by a co-owner concerning their share, and
Rustico's redemption did not terminate the existing co-ownership.
The Court emphasized that Rustico's registration of the property in his name did not
equate to ownership, as registration serves merely as notice of existing title. The Court
found that Rustico acted in bad faith by claiming sole heirship and committing fraud, thus
establishing an implied trust in favor of his half-siblings.
Regarding the issue of prescription, the Court ruled that Rustico had not effectively
repudiated the co-ownership, as he had kept his siblings in the dark about his actions. The
Court noted that prescription requires clear repudiation, which was absent in this case. The
plaintiffs' claims were deemed timely, as they only discovered the fraud during the
litigation.
https://signal.ph/digest/1263948237181913469?q=Adille+vs.+CA&k=1263948237181913469 2/3
2/6/25, 11:29 PM Digest: Adille v. CA (G.R. No. L-44546)
Significant Legal Principles Established:
1. A co-owner cannot acquire exclusive ownership of property held in common through
redemption of the entire property.
2. Registration of property does not confer ownership if obtained through fraud; it
merely serves as notice of title.
3. Prescription as a mode of terminating co-ownership requires clear repudiation of the
co-ownership, which must be communicated to the other co-owners.
Signal.ph - Philippine Legal Cases and Laws
https://signal.ph/digest/1263948237181913469?q=Adille+vs.+CA&k=1263948237181913469 3/3
