Del Banco vs IAC

1987
-

Co-ownership

Facts
1. there was a co-ownership over an island
2. Action to partition was brought only after a very long period of time has elapsed
3. Also, there was an agreement presented to the court evidencing there was partition
Issues
1. Was termination of co-ownership?
2. Did the action of partition prescribe?
Ruling
1. No, there was no termination of coownership
since there was no actual partition of the land
Although the word "partition" in the agreements, there was no actual partition
It was not made in its technical sense, but only in its spiritual sense
There was no adjudication of specific and definite portions of the property made to each
co-owner.
There was no proof that the Island in question has already been actually partitioned and
co-ownership terminated.
It is not enough that co-owners agree to subdivide the property. They must have a
subdivision plan drawn in accordance with which they take actual and exclusive of their
respective portions

2. An action for partition does not prescribe.

It is imprescriptible
It cannot be barred by laches

An action for partition does not lie except when the co-ownership is properly repudiated
by the co- owner