Laws & Jurisprudence
A Co-Owner Has An Absolute Ownership Of His Undivided And Pro-indiviso Share In The Co-Owned Property
8:37 PM
Vicente
V. Torres, Jr. (Vicente), Mariano Velez (Mariano)
and
Carlos Velez (petitioners) filed a Complaint
before
RTC Cebu City praying for the nullification of the sale of real
property by respondent Jesus Velez (Jesus) in favor of Lorenzo
Lapinid (Lapinid); the recovery of possession and ownership of the
property; and the payment of damages.
Petitioners
alleged in their complaint that they, including Jesus, are co-owners
of several parcels of land including the disputed Lot. No. 4389
located
at Cogon, Carcar, Cebu. Sometime in 1993, Jesus filed an action for
partition of the parcels of land against the petitioners and other
co-owners before Branch 21 of RTC Cebu City. A judgment was rendered
based on a compromise agreement signed by the parties wherein they
agreed that Jesus, Mariano and Vicente were jointly authorized to
sell the said properties and receive the proceeds thereof and
distribute them to all the co-owners. However, the agreement was
later amended to exclude Jesus as an authorized seller. Pursuant to
their mandate, the petitioners inspected the property and discovered
that Lapinid was occupying a specific portion of the 3000 square
meters of Lot No. 4389 by virtue of a deed of sale executed by Jesus
in favor of Lapinid. It was pointed out by petitioner that as a
consequence of what they discovered, a forcible entry case was filed
against Lapinid.
The
petitioners prayed that the deed of sale be declared null and void
arguing that the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property
without notice to the other co-owners is without force and effect.
The
trial court dismissed the complaint of petitioners. Aggrieved,
petitioners filed their partial motion for reconsideration which was
denied. Thereafter, they filed a notice of appeal, the Court of
Appeals upheld the trial court's ruling.
ISSUE:
Was
the sale between Jesus Velez and Lorenzo Lapinid valid?
RULING:
The
sale between Jesus Velez and Lorenzo Lapinid is valid. A co-owner has
an absolute ownership of his undivided and pro-indiviso share in the
co-owned property.
He
has the right to alienate, assign and mortgage it, even to the extent
of substituting a third person in its enjoyment provided that no
personal rightswill be affected. This is evident from the provision
of the Civil Code:
Art.
493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of
the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore
alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person
in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But the
effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the
co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to
him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.
A
co-owner is an owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises the
right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion
which is truly abstract.
Hence,
his co-owners have no right to enjoin a coowner who intends to
alienate or substitute his abstract portion or substitute a third
person in its enjoyment.
In
this case, Jesus can validly alienate his co-owned property in favor
of Lapinid, free from any opposition from the co-owners. Lapinid, as
a transferee, validly obtained the same rights of Jesus from the date
of the execution of a valid sale. Absent any proof that the sale was
not perfected, the validity of sale subsists. In essence, Lapinid
steps into the shoes of Jesus as co-owner of an ideal and
proportionate share in the property held in common.Thus, from the
perfection of contract on 9 November 1997, Lapinid eventually became
a co-owner of the property.
Even
assuming that the petitioners are correct in their allegation that
the disposition in favor of Lapinid before partition was a concrete
or definite portion, the validity of sale still prevails.
In
a catena of decisions,
the
Supreme Court had repeatedly held that no individual can claim title
to a definite or concrete portion before partition of co-owned
property. Each co-owner only possesses a right to sell or alienate
his ideal share after partition. However, in case he disposes his
share before partition, such disposition does not make the sale or
alienation null and void. What will be affected on the sale is only
his proportionate share, subject to the results of the partition. The
co-owners who did not give their consent to the sale stand to be
unaffected by the alienation.
G.R.
No. 187987,
November 26, 2014
VICENTE
TORRES, JR., CARLOS VELEZ, AND THE HEIRS OF MARIANO VELEZ, NAMELY:
ANITA CHIONG VELEZ, ROBERT OSCAR CHIONG VELEZ, SARAH JEAN CHIONG
VELEZ AND TED CHIONG VELEZ,Petitioners,
vs. LORENZO
LAPINID AND JESUS VELEZ, Respondents.
PEREZ,
J.:
The author takes no responsibility for the validity, correctness and result of this work. The information provided is not a legal advice and it should not be used as a substitute for a competent legal advice from a licensed lawyer. See the disclaimer
0 comments