Petitioners,  Candido  Pancho  et al.,  seek  a review  by certiorari  of a decision  of  the  Court  of  Appeals.  The pertinent facts are set forth in  said decision, from which we quote: 

"Flaviano Villanueva and Aniceta  Limbungac were husband and wife.  Anacleta had a son by her previous marriage named Patricio Pancho.  During their lifetime,  the  spouses  acquired a parcel  of land with  an area  of  fourteen hectares,  and  the corresponding Original Certificate  of Title  No. 3769  was issued in the  name  of the husband.  Flaviano died on December 11, 1931, and  on October 26,  1937, his wife executed a public instrument wherein-she stated, among  other things,  that  she was  the only forced heir of her husband, who  allegedly  died  without any  ascendant or  descendant or  any collateral heir, and asked  that  said  parcel of  land  be adjudicated to her  extra-judicially.  Aniceta died  on  March  6, 1939,  and on March 4,  1948, her aforementioned son executed an affidavit stating that he was the sole heir  of the property left by  his  deceased mother and adjudicating  the  same to him. "However, contrary to the allegations of  Aniceta and  Patricio Pancho, the late Flaviano  Villanueva  is survived  by  his brother and sister by the name of Manuel and Marta.  Thus, on March  12 1951,  they  asserted their rights to one  of the property left by their brother  by filing a  complaint against  Patricio Pancho  who, upon his death on Febuary 15,  1952, was  substituted  by his heirs,  the herein defendants, pursuant to the order of the court of October 6, of the same year, praying the Court  of First Instance of Nueva Ecija, thus

(a) To order the revival of Original Certificate of Title No. 3769 (Homestead Patent) and once revived,  to  order the immediate partition of  the same  in accordance with  the  law, one-half to the plaintiffs and the other one-half  to the defendant herein  of the above  described  land;

(b) To  declare as null and void ab initio  Annexes  'B' and 'C, as contrary to the  existing laws of heirship  and succession in relation  to the facts of the  case  and  once declared  null and  void, to  order the  cancellation  of  Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (12359) and No. 104 in the name of Aniceta Lim bungac and Patricio Pancho, respectively, of the City of Cabanatuan land  records:   

(c)  To order  the  defendant  to  pay  to  the  plaintiffs  the sum of Fl,500 as damages as a result of the lawful deprivation of plaintiffs'  legal and  lawful participation to the above described land;

"On April 5, 1951, defendants filed a motion for the dismissal of plaintiffs' complaint on  the  ground that  it  states no cause  of action and  that  their cause of  action was barred  by  the statute of limitations.  Acting upon this motion and  the opposition  thereto, the trial court issued an order denying  said  motion and directing defendants to file their answer.  Consequently, defendants filed their answer  with  affirmative  defenses  and  counterclaim,  praying  for judgment dismissing plaintiffs'  complaint  and  ordering them  to jointly and severally pay the former the sum of P3,000,00 upon their counterclaim.

"After due trial, the lower court  rendered decision, the dispositive portion of which is  as follows

"POR  LAS  CONSIDERACIONES ARRIBA EXPIJESTA, el Juzgado  dicta decision en  esta causa declarando nulos y de  ningun valor ni efecto legal  los certificados  de Titulo Nos. 103  (12359) y 104, ordenando a los  demandados a entregar dichos  certificados de titulo al Registrador de  Titulos de Nueva Ecija para  que  los cancele, y expide nuevos titulos a  favor de los  demandantes  y  demandados  despues de que el terreno sea medido y divido en partes iguales entre dichas partes de acuerdo con las  disposiciones de la  Ley No. 496.  No ha lugar a los danos reclamados por no  haberse  probado. 'Se  sobresee la  contrademanda de los  demandados.  Sin  especial pronunciamiento en  cuanto  a las costas.'

'From the aforesaid judgment, defendants appealed and now maintain that the  lower court erred

1. "In  not dismissing the  appellees complaint  on  the  ground  of improper  venue;
    
2. "In  not finding  that  the  appellees  have no cause  of action, or that  their complaints  states no  cause of action, against  the appellants;
   
3.  
4. "In  not finding  that  whatever  cause  of action the appellees might have had against the appellants the same is  already barred by the statute of limitations;
      
   
5. "In not finding  that the  appellees have failed to  prove their right to succeed to the  property in question, and thus dismissing appellees' complaint;
      
   
6. "In declaring null  and void  certificates of title  Nos.  12359 and 104 and  in ordering  the partition of the property in equal parts; and
      
   
7. "In rendering judgment in favor of appellees and not in favor of the defendants-appellants."

The Court of Appeals found no merit in  these assignments of  error and, hence, it affirmed the decision of the court of first instance.   In their petition  for certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals, the defendants now petitioners reiterate said assignments of error. The first deals with venue.  Petitioners  contend that the Court  of First Instance of Nueva Ecija had no authority to hear  the case, both parties being residents of  the province of Bulacan,  where,  it  is claimed,  the  action should  have been brought.  Such pretense  is  absolutely untenable, this being an action for partition, for plaintiffs pray in their complaint that the  court

" * * * order the  revival of  Original Certificate of  Title  No. 3769 (Homestead Patent) and once revived, to order the  immediate partition of the same in accordance with the law * * *".

and pursuant to section 3,  Rule  5 of the Rules of Court

"Actions affecting  title to, or for recovery  of  possession, or for partition  or condemnation of, or foreclosure of mortgage on,  real property, shall be commenced and tried in the province  where the property or any part thereof lies."

Referring to the second assignment of error, petitioners maintain that there is nothing in the transfer certificates of  title covering  the land  in question  or  in  any  other document  to show that said land "was being held in common   by  * * * Aniceta   Limbungac    and/or   Patricio Pancho with respondents,"  or that respondents had ever been considered by Aniceta and/or Patricio as co-owners of  said property,  and  that  there  is no  allegation in respondents'  complaint  to  the  effect that the land had ever been held by Aniceta, and/or Patricio  or by petitioners herein "in common ownership with respondents"  (pp.. 11 and  13,  Petitioners' Brief).  It is, however,  averred in the complaint that said property was part of the conjugal partnership of  Aniceta Limbungac and her deceased husband Flaviano  Villanueva; that, as  brother and  sister of the latter, who was not  survived by any ascendant or descendant, plaintiffs  (respondents herein)  Manuel  and Marta Villanueva are  the sole heirs of his share in said property; that,  as Aniceta's son by a previous marriage, Patricio  is the  successor to her share in the land in  dispute; and that  neither Aniceta nor Patricio had ever been in possession of said land.  These allegations are sufficient to show  that plaintiffs  (respondents' herein),  as heirs of Flaviano  Villanueva,  and  Patricio Pancho,  as  heir of Aniceta Limbungac, were co-owners of said property.

It appearing that Aniceta and Patricio  had never been in possession of said  property,  it follows that neither could have' acquired it by acquisitive prescription  and that the action of  plaint iff s respondents herein as co-owners of said property, to demand its partition, has not prescribed.  Accordingly, the third assignment  of error is, also,  devoid of merit.

Being  corollaries  of those already disposed of, the other assignments of error need no further discussion.

Wherefore, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed, with costs against petitioners herein.  It is so ordered.

Paras, C. J., Bengzon, Padilla, Montemayor, Reyes, A., Bautista, Angelo, Labrador,  Reyes, J. B. L. and Endencia, JJ., concur.