LILIA SANCHEZ VS CA, JUNE 20, 2003, G.R. NO. 152766, 404 SCRA 540 FACTS OF THE CASE: Lilian CASE: Lilian Sanchez constructed a house on a 76-square meter lot owned by her parents-in-law. The lot was registered with Eliseo Sanchez, arilyn Sanchez, Lilian Sanchez, !enita Sanchez, Susana Sanchez and "elipe Sanchez as co-owners. #n $% "ebruary &''(, the lot was registered in the name o) pri*ate respondent +irginia Teria by *irtue o) a eed o) bsolute Sale allegedly eecuted by the si co-owners in her )a*or. /etiti /etitioner oner,, howe*er, howe*er, claimed claimed that she did not a0 her signatur signature e on the document and subsequently re)used re)used to *acate the lot, thus prompting Teria Teria to 1le an action )or reco*ery o) possession o) the lot. ISSUE: 2hether or not petitioner is entitled to her &36 share o) the co-owned property HELD AND RATIO: RATIO: YES. The lower courts )ailed to pass upon the issue o) co-ownership present in the case at hand. 4o-ownership, whether established by law or by agreement o) the co-owners, the property or thing held pro-indi*iso is impressed with a 1ducial nature so that each co-owner becomes a trustee )or the bene1t o) his co-owners and he may not do any act pre5udicial to the interest o) his co-owners. Thus, the legal eect o) an agreement to preser*e the properties in co-ow co-owne ners rshi hip p is to crea create te an epr epres ess s trus trustt amon among g the the heir heirs s as co-ow co-owne ners rs o) the the properties. properties. 4o-ownership is a )orm o) trust and e*ery co-owner is a trustee )or the others. e)ore the partition o) a land or thing held in common, no indi*idual or co-owner can claim title to any de1nite portion thereo). thereo). ll that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land or thing. rticle 8'9 o) the 4i*il 4ode gi*es the owner o) an undi*ided interest in the property the right to )reely sell and dispose o) it, i.e., his undi*ided interest. :e may *alidly lease his undi*ided interest interest to a third party independently o) the other co-owners. ut he has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, speci1c or determinate part o) the thing owned in common because his right o*er the thing is represented by a quota or ideal portion without any physical ad5udication. lthough assigned an aliquot but abstract part o) the property, the metes and bounds o) petitioner;s lot has not been designated. s she was not a party to the Deed of Absolute Sale*oluntarily Sale*oluntarily entered entered into by the other co-owners, her right to &36 o) the property must be respect respected. ed. /artiti /artition on needs needs to be eected eected to protect protect her right right to her de1nite share and determine the boundaries o) her property. Such partition must be done without pre5udice to the rights o) pri*ate respondent +irginia Teria as buyer o) the (36 portion o) the lot under dispute. RICARDO ARDELL VS GASAR GASAR !ARTOLO"E, G.R. NO. L#4656, L#46 56, NOVE"!ER 1$, 1%12, 23 HIL. 250 FACTS OF THE CASE: Spouses iguel #rtiz and 4alita "elin died in +igan,
&
+icenta, and atilde, surnamed #rtiz y "elin, her sole and uni*ersal heirs o) all her property. anuel and "rancisca were already deceased, lea*ing +icenta and atilde as heirs. atilde and ?aspar@, without 5udicial authorization, nor )riendly or etra5udicial agreement, tooA upon themsel*es the administration and en5oyment o) the properties le)t by 4alita and collected the rents, )ruits, and products thereo), to the serious detriment o) +icenta;s interest. espite repeated demands to di*ide the properties and the )ruits accruing there)rom, Sps ?aspar and atilde had been delaying the partition and deli*ery o) the said properties by means o) unAempt promises and other ecuses. +icenta 1led an action )or partition with damages be)ore the BT4. The BT4 absol*ed atilde )rom payment o) damages. ISSUE: 2hether a co-owner is required to pay )or rent in eclusi*ely using the co-owned property.
HELD AND RATIO: NO. rticle 9'8 o) the 4i*il 4ode prescribesC “Each co-owner may use the things owned in common, provided he uses them in accordance with their object and in such manner as not to injure the interests of the community nor prevent the co-owners from utilizing them according to their rights!
atilde #rtiz and her husband occupied the upper story, designed )or use as a dwelling, in the house o) 5oint ownershipD but the record shows no proo) that, by so doing, the said atilde occasioned any detriment to the interests o) the community property, nor that she pre*ented her sister +icenta )rom utilizing the said upper story according to her rights.
atilde and her husband are not obliged to pay to the plainti +icenta one-hal) o) the rents which might ha*e been deri*ed )rom the u pper story o) the said house on 4alle Escolta, and, much less, because one o) the li*ing rooms and the storeroom thereo) were used )or the storage o) some belongings and eects o) common ownership between the litigants. The de)endant atilde, there)ore, in occupying with her husband the upper oor o) the said house, did not in5ure the interests o) her co-owner, her sister +icenta, nor did she pre*ent the latter )rom li*ing therein, but merely eercised a legitimate right pertaining to her as a co-owner o) the property.
JOSEFINA VALDEZ, ET.AL VS TEOFILA OLORGA, G.R. NO. L#22571 "AY 25, 1%73, 51 SCRA 71
$
FACTS OF THE CASE: This case is an action )or partition, concerning Lot !o. &= in /uerto /rincesa 4adastre in the name o) "ederico +aldez, Fr >one o) "ederico, Sr. and Fuanita atul;s children@.
The sub5ect Lot was sold by Spouses ?utierrez to Spouses +aldez. portion was leased to one r. Guicho which he e*entually purchased )or a consideration. The remaining portions o) the property remained registered in the name o) "ederico +aldez Fr. as *endee. The trans)er o) the lot in the name o) "ederico, Sr., was ne*er done because the owner;s original certi1cate o) title was lost. Testimony o) rs. 4astro@. ISSUE 2hether or not prescription applies in the case. HELD AND RATIO: NO. 2hen "ederico +aldez, Fr. was still li*ing, he ne*er attempted to eclude the herein plaintis )rom ownership o) the land in question. Said plaintis ha*e been in open continuous and uninterrupted possession o) the premises they are occupying inside the lot in question long be)ore the eecution o) the deed o) sale.
JOSE "ARIA RA"IREZ &. JOSE EUGENIO RA"IREZ, '(.)* G.R. N+. L#22621. S'('-'/ 2%, 1%67, 21 SCRA 3$4 FACTS OF THE CASE: This is an action )or the partition o) a parcel o) land situated at the !orthwestern corner o) Escolta street and /laza Sta. 4ruz, anila belonging pro indi*iso to both parties, one sith >&36@ to the plainti and 1*e-siths >(36@ to the de)endants. The lower court created a 4ommission to determine whether the property is susceptible o) partition. The 4ommissioner proposed )or the segregation o) plainti;s share which the 4ourt appro*ed. The 4ourt ordered the partition o) the property in accordance with the plan submitted by commissioner +alencia, and that the epenses incident thereto be paid by both parties proportionately. :ence, this appeal. ISSUE: 2hether or not the property is legally susceptible o) physical di*ision
9
HELD AND RATIO: YES. !o e*idence was introduced in support o) the claim that a physical di*ision o) the property will cause inestimable damage to the interest o) the co-owners thereo), a court order requiring its di*ision was proper. ppellants argue that, instead o) maAing the a)orementioned segregation, plaintis share should be sold to them.
"ARIANO DISTRITO VS CA, G.R. NO. %5256, "AY 2$, 1%%1, 1%7 SCRA 606
FACTS OF THE CASE: /ri*ate respondents seeA to redeem as co-owners )rom petitioners a parcel o) land o) the umaguete 4adastre.
/ri*ate respondents; assert that the property in question was originally owned by the deceased Simeona mistad. /acita iquiabas-Samson testi1ed that she had bought the share o) Librada +illamil and agreed with the heirs o) ?abina +illamil to buy their respecti*e shares and would liAe to redeem the shares o) 4atalina and necito both surnamed +illamil to preser*e the )amily lot )or sentimental reasons. The lot in question, howe*er, appeared to ha*e been sold to petitioners. /etitoners a*erred that the sub5ect lot was the sub5ect o) a ci*il case. /etitioners purchased one hal) o) said lot upon representation o) /edro iquiabas >one o) the pri*ate respondents@. /etitioners bought the shares o) 4atalina and necito +illamil. #n pril 9%, &'7(, the instrument o) sale was notarized by Fuan . Lapisan, Fr. who testi1ed that /edro iquiabas accompanied Eduardo istrito and himsel) to Siaton, !egros #riental where 4atalina +illamil is li*ing in order )or the latter to sign the document as 4atalina was too old to tra*el to umaguete 4ity. /edro also oered to sell his share and that o) his sister but Eduardo hesitated.
8
E*entually, Eduardo istrito noti1ed pri*ate respondents that they were constructing a building on the portion they bought )rom 4atalina +illamil and necito +illamil. :owe*er, /acita re)used as the shares o) 4atalina +illamil and necito +illamil has not been segregated as there was no partition o*er the lot in question.
/ri*ate respondents oered to redeem the land )rom petitioners but they re)used. ISSUE: 2hether or not the pri*ate respondents are entitled to redeem the land in question. HELD AND RATIO: The complaint is dismissed as to pri*ate respondent /edro iquiabas who had lost his right to redeem. :e acted as middleman and was present when the *endor signed the deed o) sale. :a*ing actual Anowledge o) the sale, a written notice is no longer required. The only purpose o) such written notice is to insure that all the co-owners shall be actually noti1ed o) the sale and to remo*e all doubt as to the per)ection o) the sale. s to /acita iquiabas, e*idence showed that she was not present when the a)oresaid sale o) the property was undertaAen nor was she in)ormed or that she e*er learned about the sale soon therea)ter. 9%@ days therea)ter, that is, on ugust 9, &'=8, said pri*ate respondent 1led a complaint )or legal redemption in court and at the same time deposited the amount o) /8,(==.=( with the court as the purchase price. s the law requires a written notice o) such sale to the co-owners, such actual notice to pri*ate respondent /acita iquiabas is not su0cient compliance with the requirement. oreo*er, said respondent 1led the complaint )or legal redemption within thirty >9%@ days )rom the time she was *erbally noti1ed thereo) by petitioners. :ence, her right to redeem the property as co-owner must be sustained. SULICIO CARVAJAL VS CA, G.R. NO. L#44426 FE!RUARY 25, 1%$2, 112 SCRA 237 FACTS OF THE CASE: The sub5ect lot was originally owned by :ermogenes Espique and his wi)e and a)ter their death, the lot was succeeded by their children, aria, E*aristo, "austino, Este)anio and Tropinio. /etitioner then a*erred that he purchased the $3( o) the lot )rom Este)anio and respondents purchased &3( o) the lot )rom E*aristo. The part o) the land in contro*ersy was the &3( portion. This prompted the pri*ate respondents to 1le a case o) e5ectment and reco*ery o) possession, where in )act there has been no partition yet on the sub5ect lot. oth the lower court and the appellate court ruled in )a*or o) the respondents. :ence, this petition. ISSUE: 2hether the co-owners may sell a speci1c part o) the co-owned property without partition. HELD AND RATIO: NO. 2ithout partition, either by agreement between the parties o) by 5udicial proceeding, a co-heir cannot dispose o) a speci1c portion o) the estate. 2hile under rticle 8'9 o) the !ew 4i*il 4ode, each co-owner shall ha*e the )ull ownership o) his part and o) the )ruits and bene1ts pertaining thereto and he may alienate, assign or
(
mortgage it, and e*en substitute another person in its en5oyment, the eect o) the alienation or the mortgage with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited, by mandate o) the same article, to the portion which may be allotted to him in the di*ision upon the termination o) the co-ownership. :e has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, speci1c, or determinate part o) the thing in common to the eclusion o) the other co-owners because his right o*er the thing is represented by an abstract or
SUNSET VIE CONDO"INIU" COR VS CA"OS G.R NO. L#52361, ARIL 27, 1%$1 FACTS OF THE CASE: The petitioner, Sunset +iew 4ondominium 4orporation is a condominium corporation within the meaning o) Bepublic ct !o. 87$6 in relation to a duly registered mended aster eed with eclaration o) Bestrictions o) the Sunset +iew 4ondominium /ro5ect located at $$9% Boas oule*ard, /asay 4ity o) which said petitioner is the anagement ody holding title to all the common and limited common areas.
The pri*ate respondent, guilar-ernares Bealty, a sole proprietorship owned and operated by the spouses Emmanuel ?. guilar and enaida . guilar, is the assignee o) a unit, ISolanaJ, in the Sunset +iew 4ondominium /ro5ect with La /erla 4ommercial, &@ that the complaint does not state a cause o) actionC >$@ that the court has no 5urisdiction o*er the sub5ect or nature other actionD and >9@ that there is another action pending between the same parties )or the same cause. The petitioner 1led its opposition. The motion to dismiss was granted by the respondent Fudge, pursuant to Section $ o) Bepublic ct !o. 87$6, a Iholder o) a separate interestJ and consequently, a shareholder o) the plainti condominium corporationD and that Ithe case should be properly 1led with the
6
Securities M Echange 4ommission which has eclusi*e original 5urisdiction on contro*ersies arising between shareholders o) the corporation.J the motion )or reconsideration thereo) ha*ing been denied, the petitioner, alleging gra*e abuse o) discretion on the part o) respondent Fudge, 1led the instant petition )or certiorari praying that the said orders be set aside. ISSUEC 2hether the 4"< or the 4ity 4ourts ha*e 5urisdiction o*er the claims 1led by Sunset +iew, the condominium corporation.
HELD AND RATIO: Not every purchaser of a condominium unit is a shareholder in the corporation. The Mater Deed determines when ownership of the unit and participation in the corporation vests in the purchaser. The 4ity 4ourt and the 4"< ha*e 5urisdiction. The share o) stocA appurtenant to the unit win be trans)erred accordingly to the purchaser o) the unit only upon )ull payment o) the purchase price at which time he will also become the owner o) the unit. 4onsequently, e*en under the contract, it is only the owner o) a unit who is a shareholder o) the 4ondominium 4orporation.
7
