LILIA SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs.

COURT OF APPEALS, Co-ownership; Relationship

HON. VICTORINO S. ALVARO as Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. In co-ownership, the relationship of such co-owner to the other
120, Caloocan City, and VIRGINIA TERIA, respondents. co-owners is fiduciary in character and attribute.
Whether established by law or by agreement of the co-owners,
FACTS: the property or thing held pro-indiviso is impressed with a
Special Civil Action for Certiorari under Rule 65. fiducially nature so that each co-owner becomes a trustee for
Lilia Sanchez, constructed a house on a 76-square the benefit of his co-owners and he may not do any act
meter lot owned by her parents-in-law. The lot was registered prejudicial to the interest of his co-owners.
under TCT No. 263624 with the following co-owners: Eliseo
Sanchez married to Celia Sanchez, Marilyn Sanchez married Thus, the legal effect of an agreement to preserve the
to Nicanor Montalban, Lilian Sanchez, widow, Nenita Sanchez, properties in co-ownership is to create an express trust among
single, Susana Sanchez married to Fernando Ramos, and the heirs as co-owners of the properties. Co-ownership is a
Felipe Sanchez. form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee for the others.
On 20 February 1995, the lot was registered under
TCT No. 289216 in the name of private respondent Virginia Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an
Teria by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale supposed to have undivided interest in the property the right to freely sell and
been executed on 23 June 1995 by all six (6) co-owners in her dispose of it, i.e., his undivided interest. He may validly lease
favor. his undivided interest to a third party independently of the other
Lilia Sanchez claimed that she did not affix her co-owners.
signature on the document and subsequently refused to vacate But he has no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific or
the lot, thus prompting Virginia Teria to file an action for determinate part of the thing owned in common because his
recovery of possession of the aforesaid lot with the MeTC. right over the thing is represented by a quota or ideal portion
MeTC Decision: In favor of Teria, declaring that the without any physical adjudication.
sale was valid only to the extent of 5/6 of the lot and the other
1/6 remaining as the property of petitioner, on account of her Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the
signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale having been property, the metes and bounds of petitioner’s lot has not been
established as a forgery. designated. As she was not a party to the Deed of Absolute
RTC Decision: Affirmed the RTC, because they failed Sale voluntarily entered into by the other co-owners, her right
to submit their pleadings. to 1/6 of the property must be respected. Partition needs to be
On 4 November 1998, the MeTC issued an order for effected to protect her right to her definite share and determine
the issuance of a writ of execution in favor of private Virginia the boundaries of her property. Such partition must be done
Teria, buyer of the property. without prejudice to the rights of private respondent Virginia
On 4 November 1999 or a year later, a Notice to Teria as buyer of the 5/6 portion of the lot under dispute.
Vacate was served by the sheriff upon petitioner who however WHEREFORE, the Petition is GRANTED. The Decision
refused to heed the Notice. of the Court of Appeals dated 23 May 2001 as well as its
On 28 April 1999 private respondent started Resolution dated 8 January 2002 in CA-G.R. SP No. 59182 is
demolishing petitioner’s house without any special permit of ANNULLED and SET ASIDE. A survey of the questioned lot
demolition from the court. with TCT No. 289216 (formerly TCT No. 263624) by a duly
Due to the demolition of her house, which continued until 24 licensed geodetic engineer and the PARTITION of the
May 1999, petitioner was forced to inhabit the portion of the aforesaid lot are ORDERED.
premises that used to serve as the house’s toilet and laundry Let the records of this case be REMANDED to MeTC-Br.
area. 49, Caloocan City to effect the aforementioned survey and
On 29 October 1999 petitioner filed her Petition for partition, as well as segregate the 1/6 portion appertaining to
Relief from Judgment with the RTC on the ground that she was petitioner Lilia Sanchez.
not bound by the inaction of her counsel who failed to submit The Deed of Absolute Sale by the other co-owners to Virginia
petitioner’s appeal memorandum. Teria shall be RESPECTED insofar as the other undivided 5/6
RTC Decision: Denied the Petition and the portion of the property is concerned.
subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
CA (Petition for Certiorari): Dismissed the petition for
lack of merit.

ISSUE:
WON the CA committed grave abuse of discretion n dismissing
the challenged case before it.

HELD:
This case overlooks a basic yet significant principle of
civil law: co-ownership. Throughout the proceedings from the
MeTC to the Court of Appeals, the notion of co-ownership was
not sufficiently dealt with. We attempt to address this
controversy in the interest of substantial
justice. Certiorari should therefore be granted to cure this grave
abuse of discretion.

Co-ownership; Nature
Sanchez Roman defines co-ownership as “the right of common
dominion, which two or more persons have in a spiritual part of
a thing, not materially or physically divided. Manresa defines it
as the “manifestation of the private right of ownership, which
instead of being exercised by the owner in an exclusive
manner over the things subject to it, is exercised by two or
more owners and the undivided thing or right to which it refers
is one and the same.”
RICARDO PARDELL Y CRUZ and VICENTA ORTIZ Y FELIN have been derived from the upper story of the said house on
DE PARDELL, plaintiffs-appellees, vs. GASPAR DE Calle Escolta, and, much less, because one of the living rooms
BARTOLOME Y ESCRIBANO and MATILDE ORTIZ Y FELIN and the storeroom thereof were used for the storage of some
DE BARTOLOME, defendants-appellants. 1912 Nov 18 1st belongings and effects of common ownership between the
Division G.R. No. 4656 litigants. The defendant Matilde, therefore, in occupying with
her husband the upper floor of the said house, did not injure
FACTS: the interests of her co-owner, her sister Vicenta, nor did she
Appeal by bill of exceptions. prevent the latter from living therein, but merely exercised a
Spouses Miguel Ortiz and Calixta Felin died in Vigan, legitimate right pertaining to her as a co-owner of the property.
Ilocos Sur, in 1875 and 1882, respectively. Prior to her death,
Calixta, executed, on August 17, 1876, a nuncupative will in
Vigan, whereby she made her four children, named Manuel,
Francisca, Vicenta, and Matilde, surnamed Ortiz y Felin, her
sole and universal heirs of all her property. Manuel and
Francisca were already deceased, leaving Vicenta and Matilda
as heirs.
In 1888, the defendants (Matilde and Gaspar), without
judicial authorization, nor friendly or extrajudicial agreement,
took upon themselves the administration and enjoyment of the
properties left by Calixta and collected the rents, fruits, and
products thereof, to the serious detriment of Vicenta’s interest.
Despite repeated demands to divide the properties and the
fruits accruing therefrom, Sps. Gaspar and Matilde had been
delaying the partition and delivery of the said properties by
means of unkept promises and other excuses.
Vicenta filed a petition for partition with damages in the RTC.
RTC Decision: Absolved Matilde from payment of
damages. It held that the residence enjoyed by the defendant
party compensated the revenues and the expenses, that no
losses or damages were either caused or suffered, nor likewise
any other expense besides those aforementioned.
Counsel for Matilde took an exception to the judgment
and moved for a new trial on the grounds that the evidence
presented did not warrant the judgment rendered and that the
latter was contrary to law.
The lower court denied that motion.
Hence, this petition.

ISSUE:
WON a co-owner is required to pay for rent in exclusively using
the co-owned property.

RULING:
Article 394 of the Civil Code prescribes:
“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.”
Matilde Ortiz and her husband occupied the upper
story, designed for use as a dwelling, in the house of joint
ownership; but the record shows no proof that, by so doing, the
said Matilde occasioned any detriment to the interests of the
community property, nor that she prevented her sister Vicenta
from utilizing the said upper story according to her rights. It is
to be noted that the stores of the lower floor were rented and
an accounting of the rents was duly made to the plaintiffs.
Each co-owner of realty held pro indiviso exercises
his rights over the whole property and may use and enjoy the
same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the
interests of his coowners, for the reason that, until a division be
made, the respective part of each holder can not be
determined and every one of the coowners exercises together
with his other coparticipants, joint ownership over the pro
indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of the
same.
As the hereditary properties of the joint ownership of
the two sisters, Vicenta Ortiz, plaintiff, and Matilde Ortiz,
defendant, were situated in the Province of Ilocos Sur, and
were in the care of the last named, assisted by her husband,
while the plaintiff Vicenta with her husband was residing
outside of the said province the greater part of the time
between 1885 and 1905, when she left these Islands for Spain,
JOSEFINA VALDEZ, JAIME VALDEZ, ROGELIO ALMONTE, repudiation have been made known to the cestui que trust and
RAQUEL ALMONTE and RAUL ALMONTE, the latter two (c) that the evidence thereon should be clear and
minors, represented in this action by their father, conclusive. * These circumstances are not present in this case.
FRANCISCO ALMONTE, plaintiffs-appellees

FACTS:
This is an action for partition filed by the living children
and grandchildren of the late spouses Federico Valdez, Sr. and
Juanita Batul against the heir and widow of Federico Valdez,
Jr. The action concerns a Lot in Puerto Princesa Cadastre in
the name of Federico Valdez, Jr.
Upon the death of the spouses Federico Valdez,
Sr and Juanita Batul left the following children as their heirs:
(1) Avelina Olorga, who died in 1941, leaving as her heir co-
defendant Renato Olorga; (2) Elisa Valdez-Almonte, who died
in 1947, leaving Rogelio, Raquel and Raul, all surnamed
Almonte, as her heirs; (3) the plaintiff Josefina Valdez; (4)
Federico Valdez, Jr., who died in September, 1960, leaving as
his heirs defendants Teofila Olorga, his wife, and Carmen
Valdez, his daughter; and (5) Jaime Valdez, co-plaintiff herein.
In 1930, the old Valdez family, as vendees, occupied
and lived in the premises of Lot No. 18. After the death of
Federico Valdez, Sr., Juanita Batul, in the year 1936, executed
a contract of lease over a portion of Lot No. 18 in favor of the
protestant church of Puerto Princesa. The same Juanita Batul
leased in 1939 a portion of Lot No. 18 to Mr. Gregorio Quicho.
The transfer of the lot in the name of Federico, Sr.,
was never done because the owner’s original certificate of title
was lost.
Josefina Valdez and Federico Valdez, Jr.
commissioned their cousin Concepcion Castro to negotiate
with the Gutierrez family in 1948 in order that the property in
question may be transferred to them. It turned out that the
Gutierrez family was asking for an additional amount of
P2,500.00.
The name of Federico Valdez, Jr. appeared as the
only vendee. This was done pursuant to the wishes of Mr.
Quicho who advanced the money, in order that he could
facilitate the deed of sale between him and the Valdezes, with
the understanding that Federico Valdez, Jr. will hold the same
in trust for his other brother and sisters (Testimony of Mrs.
Castro).
When Federico Valdez, Jr. was still living, he never
attempted to exclude the herein plaintiffs from ownership of the
land in question. Said plaintiffs have been in open continuous
and uninterrupted possession of the premises they are
occupying inside the lot in question long before the execution
of the deed of sale. It was only after the death of Federico
Valdez, Jr. that the widow Teofila Olorga tried to eject the
plaintiffs.

ISSUE:
WON prescription applies in the case.

HELD:
No. Given the antecedents of the property and the fact that its
acquisition by Federico Valdez, Jr. was for the benefit not of
himself alone but also of his brother and sisters, although for
purposes of convenience he was made to appear as the sole
vendee, the juridical relation that arose among them was one
of co-ownership, with the plaintiffs-appellees actually in
possession of a portion of the property.
Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, “No prescription shall run
in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his co-owners or co-
heirs so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-
ownership.”
Insofar as the aspect of extinctive prescription referred to in
this article is concerned, it is but a restatement of Article 1965
of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides: “As between co-
heirs, co-owners, or proprietors of adjacent estates, the action
to demand the partition of the inheritance or of the thing held in
common, or the survey of the adjacent properties, does not
prescribe.”
 TESTATE ESTATE OF JOSE EUGENIO RAMIREZ, MARIA made. Also, according to Art 859 CC, cases also include
LUISA PALACIOS, Administratrix, petitioner-appellee, vs. refusal or incapacity to accept inheritance therefore it is VALID.
MARCELLE D. VDA.DE RAMIREZ, ET AL., oppositors, BUT fideicommissary substitutions are VOID because Juan
JORGE and ROBERTO RAMIREZ, legatees, oppositors- Pablo Jankowski and Horace Ramirez are not related to
appellants. Wanda and according to Art 863 CC, it validates a
fideicommissary substitution provided that such
FACTS: substitution does not go beyond one degree from the heir
Jose Eugenio Ramirez, a Filipino national, died in originally instituted. Another is that there is no absolute duty
Spain on December 11, 1964, with only his widow as imposed on Wanda to transmit the usufructuary to the
compulsory heir. The Court of First Instance of Manila, Branch substitutes and in fact the appellee agrees that the testator
X, admitted his will to probate on July 27, 1965. Maria Luisa contradicts the establishment of the fideicommissary
Palacios was appointed administratrix of the estate. substitution when he permits the properties be subject to
On June 23, 1966, the administratrix submitted a usufruct to be sold upon mutual agreement of the usufructuary
project of partition as follows: the property of the deceased is to and naked owners.
be divided into two parts. One part shall go to the widow “en
plenodominio” in satisfaction of her legitime; the other part or c. YES, usufruct of Wanda is VALID
“free portion” shall go to Jorge and Roberto Ramirez “en Art XIII Sec 5 (1935): Save in cases of hereditary
nudapropriedad.” Furthermore, one third (1/3) of the free succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred or
portion is charged with the widow’s usufruct and the remaining assigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations
two-third (2/3) with a usufruct in favor of Wanda. qualified to acquire or hold land of the public domain in the
Philippines.
APPEAL for the partitioning of testate estate of Jose Eugenio The lower court upheld the usufruct thinking that the
Ramirez (a Filipino national, died in Spain on December 11, Constitution covers not only succession by operation of law but
1964) among principal beneficiaries: also testamentary succession BUT SC is of the opinion that
this provision does not apply to testamentary succession for
Marcelle Demoron de Ramirez otherwise the prohibition will be for naught and meaningless.
- Widow Any alien would circumvent the prohibition by paying money to
- French who lives in Paris a Philippine landowner in exchange for a devise of a piece of
- Received ½ (as spouse) and usufructuary rights over 1/3 of land BUT an alien may be bestowed USUFRUCTUARY
the free portion RIGHTS over a parcel of land in the Philippines.
Therefore, the usufruct in favor of Wanda, although a
Roberto and Jorge Ramirez real right, is upheld because it does not vest title to the land in
- Two grandnephews the usufructuary (Wanda) and it is the vesting of title to land in
- Lives in Malate favor of aliens, which is proscribed by the Constitution.
- Received the ½ (free portion)
Decision: ½ Marcelle (as legitime), ½ Jorge and Roberto
Wanda de Wrobleski Ramirez (free portion) in naked ownership and the usufruct to
- Companion Wanda de Wrobleski with simple substitution in favor of Juan
- Austrian who lives in Spain Pablo Jankowski and Horace Ramirez.
- Received usufructuary rights of 2/3 of the free portion
- Vulgar substitution in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and
Horacio Ramirez
- Maria Luisa Palacios - administratix
- Jorge and Roberto Ramirez opposed because
a. Vulgar substitution in favor of Wanda wrt widow’s usufruct
and in favor of Juan Pablo Jankowski and Horacio Ramirez,
wrt to Wanda’s usufruct is INVALID because first heirs
(Marcelle and Wanda) survived the testator
b. Fideicommissary substitutions are INVALID because first
heirs not related to the second heirs or substitutes within the
first degree as provided in Art 863 CC
c. Grant of usufruct of real property in favor of an alien, Wanda,
violated Art XIII Sec 5
d. Proposed partition of the testator’s interest in the Santa Cruz
Building between widow and appellants violates testators
express will to give this property to them

- LC: approved partition

ISSUE:
WON the partition is valid insofar as
a. Widow’s legitime
b. Substitutions
c. Usufruct of Wanda

HELD:
A. YES, appellants do not question ½ because Marcelle is the
widow and over which he could impose no burden,
encumbrance, condition or substitution of any kind whatsoever
- The proposed creation by the admininstratix in favor of the
testator’s widow of a usufruct over 1/3 of the free portion of the
testator’s estate cannot be made where it will run counter to
the testator’s express will. The Court erred for Marcelle who is
 SALVADOR vs. COURT OF APPEALS the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; (2) that such
G.R. No. 109910, April 5, 1995 positive acts of repudiation have been made known to
the cestui que trust or the other co-owners; and (3) that the
FACTS: evidence thereon must be clear and convincing.
Alipio Yabo was the owner of Lot No. 6080 and Lot No. 6180
situated in Cagayan de Oro City. Title devolved upon his nine Records do not show that Pastor Makibalo adjudicated to
children, namely, Victoriano, Procopio, Lope, Jose, Pelagia, himself the whole estate of his wife by means of an affidavit
Baseliza, Francisca, Maria, and Gaudencia, upon his death filed with the Office of the Register of Deeds which caused the
sometime before or during the WWII. issuance of a certificate of title in his name or the cancellation
of the tax declaration in Alipio's name and the issuance of a
Pastor Makibalo, husband of Maria Yabo, filed with the CFI a new one in his own name. The only act, which may be deemed
complaint against the spouses Alberto and Elpia Yabo for as repudiation by Pastor of the co-ownership over the lots, is
quieting of title. He alleged that he owned 8/9 of the subject his filing of an action to quiet title. The period of prescription
lots, having purchased the shares of seven of Alipio's children started to run only from this repudiation. However, this was
and inherited the share of his wife, Maria, and that except for tolled when his co-heirs, the private respondents herein,
the portion corresponding to Gaudencia's share which he did instituted an action for partition. Hence, the adverse
not buy, he occupied, cultivated, and possessed continuously, possession by Pastor being for only about six months would
openly, peacefully, and exclusively the two parcels of land. not vest in him exclusive ownership of his wife's estate, and
absent acquisitive prescription of ownership, laches and
The grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the late Alipio prescription of the action for partition will not lie in favor of
Yabo filed a complaint for partition and quieting of title with Pastor.
damages against Pastor Makibalo, Enecia Cristal, and the
spouses Eulogio and Remedies Salvador. They alleged that
said lots are the common property of the heirs of Alipio Yabo;
that after Alipio's death, the spouses Pastor and Maria
Makibalo, Enecia Cristal and Jose Yabo became the de
facto administrators of the said properties; and that much to
their surprise, they discovered that the Salvador spouses, who
were strangers to the family, have been harvesting coconuts
from the lots.

The trial court decided in favor of the plaintiffs. CA held, among

others, that prescription and laches have not run against the
private respondents with respect to the 1/9 share of Maria
Yabo in the estate of her father and to her conjugal share in
the portions acquired from her brothers and sisters.

ISSUE:
WON Pastor Makibalo has acquired by prescription the shares
of his other co-heirs or co-owners.

HELD:
No.

Upon Maria's death, the conjugal partnership of gains was

dissolved. Half of the conjugal properties, together with Maria's
1/9 hereditary share in the disputed lots, constituted Maria's
estate and should thus go to her surviving heirs. Under Article
1001 of the Civil Code, her heirs are her spouse, Pastor
Makibalo, who shall be entitled to half of her estate; and her
brother, Jose, and the children of her other brothers and
sisters, who shall inherit the other half. There having been no
actual partition of the estate yet, the said heirs became co-
owners by operation of law.

Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that each co-owner may
demand at any time the partition of the common property
implies that an action to demand partition is imprescriptible or
cannot be barred by laches. The imprescriptibility of the action
cannot, however, be invoked when one of the co-owners has
possessed the property as exclusive owner and for a period
sufficient to acquire it by prescription. Prescription as a mode
of acquiring ownership requires a continuous, open, peaceful,
public, and adverse possession for a period of time fixed by
law.

The possession of a co-owner is like that of a trustee and shall

not be regarded as adverse to the other co-owners but in fact
as beneficial to all of them. Acts, which may be considered
adverse to strangers, may not be considered adverse insofar
as co-owners are concerned. A mere silent possession by a
co-owner, his receipt of rents, fruits or profits from the property,
the erection of buildings and fences and the planting of trees
 MARIANO DISTRITO, LUISA DISTRITO, MARIANO owners shall be actually notified of the sale and to remove all
CIMAFRANCA, EDUARDO DOMICIANO DISTRITO, doubt as to the perfection of the sale.
ELIZABETH DISTRITO and SEGUNDINO CATIPAY, When as in this case the co-owner was actually
Petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, present and was even an active intermediary in the
PEDRO MIQUIABAS, PACITA MIQUIABAS, and ENRIQUE consummation of the sale of the property he is and must be
SAMSON, Respondents. considered to have had actual notice of the sale. A written
notice is no longer necessary.
FACTS: As to private respondent Pacita Miquiabas she was
not present when the aforesaid sale of the property was
This petition involves the legal redemption of real property. undertaken. There is no evidence that she was informed or that
Private respondents seek to redeem as co-owners from she ever learned about the sale soon thereafter. It was only in
petitioners a parcel of land of the Dumaguete Cadastre. July 1984 that she was notified by petitioners of their intention
Plaintiff-appellants evidence tends to establish that to construct a building on a portion of the property in question,
Simeona Amistad now deceased originally owned the property which they bought. Within thirty (30) days thereafter, that is, on
in question, they’re predecessor-in-interest. The heirs of the August 3, 1984, said private respondent filed a complaint for
late Simeona Amistad are Eufrocina Potenciana, Librada, legal redemption in court and at the same time deposited the
Catalina, Gabina and Anecito all surnamed Villamil. Librada’s amount of P4, 588.85 with the court as the purchase price.
house was constructed in the lot, where Librada’s husband and As the law requires a written notice of such sale to the
children are presently staying after Librada’s death. Plaintiff co-owners, such actual notice to private respondent Pacita
Pacita Miquiabas-Samson is also living in Librada’s house. Miquiabas is not sufficient compliance with the requirement.
Pedro Miquiabas also stays in the house when he visits Moreover, said respondent filed the complaint for legal
Dumaguete City. redemption within thirty (30) days from the time she was
Appellant Pacita Miquiabas-Samson testified that she verbally notified thereof by petitioners. Hence, her right to
had bought the share of Librada Villamil and agreed with the redeem the property as co-owner must be sustained.
heirs of Gabina Villamil to buy their respective shares and
would like to redeem the shares of Catalina and Anecito both
surnamed Villamil to preserve the family lot for sentimental
reasons.
Plaintiff-appellants claim that they only came to know
about the sale of the lot in question in July 1984, when
Eduardo Distrito, one of the defendant-appellee [sic] notified
them that the defendants were constructing a building on the
portion they bought from Catalina Villamil and Anecito Villamil.
However, appellant Pacita Miquiabas-Samson refused as the
shares of Catalina Villamil and Anecito Villamil has [sic] not yet
been segregated, as there was no partition over the lot in
question.
Plaintiffs-appellants offered to redeem the land in the
amount of P4, 566.00, but the defendants-appellees refused.
Hence a tender of payment was made (Exh. B), with the court,
and notice of consignation was sent to the defendants-
appellees. (Exhibit C).
On the other hand, the evidence of the defendant-
appellees tends to prove that the whole lot 716 of the
Dumaguete Cadastre was the subject of a civil case in the
Court of First Instance of Negros Oriental, and the said court
adjudicated to the six (6 ) heirs of Simeona Amistad Lot No.
716-B-2, the land in litigation with the one sixth (1/6) pro-
indiviso shares.
On April 16, 1976 the defendant-appellees acquired
by purchase one-half (1/2) portion pro-indiviso of Lot No. 716-
B-3, from Atty. Marcelo Flores which the latter acquired as
payment of his attorney’s fees in the Civil Case. (Exhibit 3).
Subsequently, upon representation of Plaintiff-
Appellant Pedro Miquiabas, who acted as middle-man,
defendant-appellant bought the shares of Catalina and Anecito
Villamil. On April 30, 1975, the instrument of sale was
notarized by Juan A. Lapisan, Jr. who testified that Pedro
Miquiabas accompanied Eduardo Distrito and himself to
Siaton, Negros Oriental where Catalina Villamil is living in order
for the latter to sign the document, as Catalina was too old to
travel to Dumaguete City.
Appellant Pedro Miquiabas also offered to sell his
share and that of his sister to the defendant-appellee but the
latter hesitated.
Appellee Eduardo Distrito testified that his co-
defendant and himself also bought the share of Eusebio
Amistad who owns the adjoining lot through the
representations of appellant Pedro Miquiabas. (Exh. 4).

ISSUE:
WON the private respondents are entitled to redeem the land
in question.
 LILIAN CAPITLE, SOFRONIO CORREJADO, ARTEMIO HELD:
CORREJADO, VICENTE CORREJADO, CECILIA The petition fails.
CORREJADO, GLORIA VDA. DE BEDUNA, ROGELIA Article 19 of the Civil Code in Chapter 2 on Human
CORREJADO, MANUEL CORREJADO, RODOLFO Relations is a statement of principle that supplements but does
CORREJADO, TERESITA C. AMARANTE, JUANITA not supplant a specific provision of law.
CORREJADO AND JULIETA C. PEREGRINO, petitioners, With respect to rights to the inheritance of a person
vs. JULIETA VDA. DE GABAN, JULIA CORREJADO AND who died before the effectivity on August 30, 1950 of the Civil
HERMINIGILDO CORREJADO, respondents. Code like Fabian who died in 1919:
Art. 2263, New Civil Code
DOCTRINE: Article 19 of the Civil Code in Chapter 2 on ART. 2263. Rights to the inheritance of a person who died,
Human Relations is a statement of principle that supplements with or without a will, before the effectivity of this Code, shall be
but does not supplant a specific provision of law. governed by the Civil Code of 1889, by other previous laws,
and by the Rules of Court. x x x
FACTS:
Fabian Correjado (Fabian) inherited from his father ART. 807, Spanish Civil Code of 1889
Santos Correjado two parcels of land subject of the case at ART 807. The following are forced heirs:
bar. 1. Legitimate children and descendants, with respect to their
Fabian died intestate in 1919. He was survived by four legitimate parents and ascendants;
children, namely: Julian, Zacarias, Francisco and Manuel, all 2. In default of the foregoing, legitimate parents and
surnamed Correjado. ascendants, with respect to their legitimate children and
After Fabian’s death in 1919, his son Julian occupied descendants;
and cultivated the two subject parcels of land (the property) The widower or widow, natural children legally acknowledged,
until his death in 1950. He was survived by three children, and the father or the mother of the latter, in the manner and to
namely, herein respondents Julieta vda. de Gaban (Julieta), the extent established by Articles 834, 835, 836, 837, 840, 841,
Julia Correjado (Julia) and Hermegildo Correjado. 842, and 846.
Julian’s brother Francisco died in 1960. He was
survived by herein petitioners Manuel Correjado, Teresita C. ART. 939, Spanish Civil Code of 1889,
Amarante, Juanita Correjado, Rodolfo Correjado, and Jileta ART. 939. In the absence of legitimate descendants and
Peregrino. ascendants, the natural children legally acknowledged and
Julian’s brother Zacarias died in 1984. The other those legitimated by royal concession shall succeed to the
petitioners herein, Aurora P. vda, survived him. de Correjado, entire estate of the deceased.
Lilia Capitle, Artemio Correjado, Cecilia Correjado, Rogelia
Correjado (Rogelia), Sofronio Correjado, Vicente Correjado With respect to prescription:
and Gloria vda. de Beduna. Art. 1134, New Civil Code
Petitioners filed a complaint for partition of the ART. 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable
property and damages before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) property are acquired by ordinary prescription through
of La Carlota City against respondents, alleging that Fabian possession of ten years.
contracted two marriages, the first with Brigida Salenda who Art. 1137, New Civil Code
was the mother of Julian, and the subsequent one with Maria ART. 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables
Catahay (Maria) who was the mother of Zacarias, Manuel and also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession
Francisco; that the property remained undivided even after the thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith.
death of Julian in 1950, his children-herein respondents having Assuming arguendo that petitioners’ respective fathers
arrogated unto themselves the use and enjoyment of the Francisco and Zacarias were legitimate and, therefore, were
property, to the exclusion of petitioners; and that respondents co-owners of the property: From the moment co-owner Julian
refused to deliver petitioners’ share in the property despite occupied in 1919 and claimed to be the absolute and exclusive
demands therefor and for partition. owner of the property and denied his brothers any share
Respondents answered that in the proceedings in the therein up to the time of his death in 1950, the question
intestate estate of their great grandfather Santos Correjado, involved is no longer one of partition but of ownership in which
petitioners were not adjudicated any share in the property, for case imprescriptibility of the action for partition can no longer
Maria, the mother of petitioners’ respective fathers Francisco be invoked. The adverse possession by Julian and his
and Zacarias, was just a mistress of Fabian, hence, Francisco successors-in-interest- herein respondents as exclusive owner
and Zacarias (as well as Manuel) were illegitimate who were of the property having entailed a period of about 67 years at
not entitled to inherit under the old Civil Code (Spanish Civil the time of the filing of the case at bar in 1986, ownership by
Code of 1889). prescription had vested in them.
RTC dismissed the complaint upon the grounds of
prescription and laches. As for estoppel by laches which is a creation of
[13]
CA dismissed the appeal and affirmed the decision of equity, since laches cannot interfere with the running of the
the trial court. The appellate court found that respondents period of prescription, absent any conduct of the parties
[14]
failed to discharge the onus of proving that Francisco and operating as estoppel, in light of the prescription of
Zacarias were illegitimate. But it too found that petitioners also petitioners action, discussion thereof is dispensed with. Suffice
failed to prove that Zacarias and Francisco were legitimate. it to state that while laches may not be strictly applied between
And the action of the petitioners has prescribed. near relatives, under the facts and circumstances of the case,
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration of the especially the uncontroverted claim of respondents that their
appellate court’s decision upon the ground that “THIS CASE father Julian, and the documented claim of respondent Julieta,
HAS BEEN OVERTAKEN BY EVENTS, PARTICULARLY had paid realty taxes on the property as exclusive owner, as
ART. 19 OF THE [NEW] CIVIL CODE” which reads: well as the admission of petitioner Rogelia that, as quoted
above, she and her co-petitioners never benefited or were
ART. 19. Every person, must be in the exercise of his rights deprived of any benefits from the property since 1919 up to the
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice, give time of the filing of the case in 1986 before the RTC or for a
everyone his due, and observe honesty and good faith. period of 67 years, despite demands therefor, even an
Petitioners contend that “[t]here is such a thing as morality that extremely liberal application of laches would bar the filing of the
comes into play,” as after all, the appellate court found the case.
parties to be first cousins and, therefore, following Art. 19 of the WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby DISMISSED and
 SULPICIO CARVAJAL, petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE assigned to Estefanio and Evaristo, respectively, upon the
COURT OF APPEALS ** and EUTIQUIANO CAMARILLO partition of the estate subject to provisions on subrogation of
and LIBERATA CACABELOS, respondents. the other co-heirs to the rights of the stranger-purchaser
provided in Article 1088 of the Civil Code. Respondent court’s
FACTS: ruling that the sale by Estefanio in favor of petitioner is not valid
because of lack of notice to his co-heirs is erroneous. Such
EUTIQUIANO CAMARILLO and LIBERATA notice in writing is not a requisite for the validity of the sale. Its
CACABELOS who are husband and wife, had instituted a purpose is merely to apprise the co-heirs of the sale of a
complaint before the CFI for ejectment and recovery of portion of the estate, for them to exercise their preferential right
possession against SULPICIO CARVAJAL, alleging that they of subrogation under Article 1088 of the New Civil Code, that
are the owners of a parcel of commercial land, pro-indiviso, is, the right to redeem the property sold within one month from
consisting of 150.8 sq. meters, more or less, situated in the time they were notified in writing of the sale by a co-heir.
Poblacion, Tayug, Pangasinan, having bought the same from
Evaristo G. Espique by virtue of a Deed of Absolute Sale
executed on April 15, 1964. They also demand that petitioner
pay a monthly rental for the use of the property all P40.00 until
the property is surrendered to them.
The property in question is a 1/5 portion of a 754 sq.
meter land originally owned by Hermogenes Espique and his
wife, both deceased. After their death their five children,
namely: Maria, Evaristo, Faustina, Estefanio and Tropinia
succeeded them in the ownership of the whole lot.
Petitioner occupies two-fifths of the whole lot
inherited pro-indiviso by the Espique children. Petitioner
alleges that he purchased the northern one-half portion of the
lot he is occupying (which is also claimed by respondents) from
Estefanio Espique and that the southern one-half portion of the
lot he is occupying (which is also claimed by respondents) from
Estefanio Espique and that Tropinia Espique leases the
southern one-half portion to him. The land subject of the
controversy is the most southern portion of the whole lot
inherited by the Espique children which petitioner claims he
had bought from Estefanio on April 26, 1967 and which
respondents claim they had bought from Evaristo on April 15,
1964.
Both sales were made while the petition for partition
filed by Evaristo Espique was still pending before the Court of
First Instance of Pangasinan.

ISSUE:
1. WON Respondents have the right to eject petitioners
or demand payment of rentals for the use of property
in dispute.
2. WON the co – owners may sell a specific part of the
co – owned property without partition.

HELD:
The SC ruled in the negative. Until the partition of the estate is
ordered by the Court of First Instance of Pangasinan in the
pending partition proceedings and the share of each co-heir is
determined by metes and bounds, neither petitioner nor
respondents can rightfully claim that what they bought is the
part in dispute.

RATIO:
Under Article 493 of the New Civil Code, each co-
owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits
and benefits pertaining thereto and he may alienate, assign or
mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its
enjoyment, the effect of the alienation or the mortgage with
respect to the co-owners, shall be limited, by mandate of the
same article, to the portion which may be allotted to him in the
division upon the termination of the co-ownership. He has no
right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific, or determinate part
of the thing in common to the exclusion of the other co-owners
because an abstract or ideal portion without any physical
adjudication represents his right over the thing. An individual
co- owner cannot adjudicate to himself or claim title to any
definite portion of the land or thing owned in common until its
actual partition by agreement or judicial decree. Prior to that
time all that the co-owner has is an Ideal or abstract quota or
proportionate share in the entire thing owned in common by all
the co-owners. What a co owner may dispose of is only
SUNSET VIEW CONDOMINIUM CORPORATION, petitioner, ISSUE:
vs. THE HON. JOSE C. CAMPOS, JR. OF THE COURT OF Note: It is admitted that the private respondents in both cases
FIRST INSTANCE, BRANCH XXX, PASAY CITY and have not yet fully paid the purchase price of their units.
AGUILAR-BERNARES REALTY, respondents. (G.R. No. L-
52361 April 27, 1981) 1. Is a purchaser of a condominium unit in the condominium
project managed by the petitioner, who has not yet fully paid
FACTS: the purchase price thereof, automatically a ,stockholder of the
The petitioner, Sunset View Condominium Corporation is a petitioner Condominium Corporation? NO.
condominium corporation within the meaning of Republic Act
No. 4726 in relation to a duly registered Amended Master Deed 2. WON the CFI or the City Courts have jurisdiction over the
with Declaration of Restrictions of the Sunset View claims filed by Sunset View, the condominium corporation
Condominium Project located at 2230 Roxas Boulevard, Pasay
City of which said petitioner is the Management Body holding Held:
title to all the common and limited common areas. 1. Section 5 of the Condominium Act expressly provides that
the shareholding in the Condominium Corporation will be
The private respondent, Aguilar-Bernares Realty, a sole conveyed only in a proper case. Said Section 5 provides:
proprietorship owned and operated by the spouses Emmanuel Any transfer or conveyance of a unit or an
G. Aguilar and Zenaida B. Aguilar, is the assignee of a unit, apartment, office or other space therein,
“Solana”, in the Sunset View Condominium Project with La shall include the transfer or conveyance of
Perla Commercial, Incorporated, as assignor. The La Perla the undivided interests in the common areas
Commercial, Incorporated bought the “Solana” unit on or, in a proper case, the membership or
installment from the Tower Builders, Inc. shareholding in the condominium corporation
...
There are two cases which were consolidated in this case. As It is clear then that not every purchaser of a condominium unit
to the first case: is a shareholder of the condominium corporation. The
Condominium Act leaves to the Master Deed the determination
The petitioner, Sunset View Condominium Corporation, filed of when the shareholding will be transferred to the purchaser of
for the collection of assessments levied on the unit against a unit. Thus, Section 4 of said Act provides:
Aguilar-Bernares Realty. The provisions of this Act shall apply to
property divided or to be divided into
The private respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint condominium only if there shall be
on the grounds (1) that the complaint does not state a cause of recorded in the Register of Deeds of the
action: (2) that the court has no jurisdiction over the subject or province or city in which the property lies and
nature other action; and (3) that there is another action pending duly annotated in the corresponding
between the same parties for the same cause. The petitioner certificate of title of the land ... an enabling or
filed its opposition. master deed which shall contain, among
others, the following:
The motion to dismiss was granted by the respondent Judge, xxx xxx xxx
pursuant to Section 2 of Republic Act No. 4726, a “holder of a (d) A statement of the exact nature of the
separate interest” and consequently, a shareholder of the interest acquired or to be acquired by the
plaintiff condominium corporation; and that “the case should be purchaser in the separate units and in the
properly filed with the Securities & Exchange Commission common areas of the condominium project ...
which has exclusive original jurisdiction on controversies According to the contract entered into by the parties, the seller
arising between shareholders of the corporation.” the motion will only convey the property to the buyer upon the full payment
for reconsideration thereof having been denied, the petitioner, of purchase price and full compliance by the buyer of its
alleging grave abuse of discretion on the part of respondent obligations.
Judge, filed the instant petition for certiorari praying that the The share of stock appurtenant to the unit win be transferred
said orders be set aside. accordingly to the purchaser of the unit only upon full payment
of the purchase price at which time he will also become the
As to the second case: owner of the unit.
The petitioner filed its amended complaint for the collection of Consequently, even under the contract, it is only the owner of a
overdue accounts on assessments and insurance premiums unit who is a shareholder of the Condominium Corporation.
and the interest thereon amounting to P6,168 06 against the Inasmuch as owners is conveyed only upon full payment of the
private respondent Lim Siu Leng to whom was assigned a unit purchase price, it necessarily follows that a purchaser of a unit
called "Alegria" of the Sunset View Condominium Project by who has not paid the full purchase price thereof is not The
Alfonso Uy who had entered into a "Contract to Buy and Sell" owner of the unit and consequently is not a shareholder of the
with Tower Builders, Inc. over the said unit on installment Condominium Corporation.
basis. Pursuant to Sec 10 of the Condominium Act, ownership of a
The private respondent filed a motion to dismiss on the ground unit is a condition sine qua non to being a shareholder in the
of lack of jurisdiction, alleging that the amount sought to be condominium corporation.
collected is an assessment. The correctness and validity of The private respondents, therefore, who have not fully paid the
which is certain to involve a dispute between her and the purchase price of their units and are consequently not owners
petitioner corporation; that she has automatically become, as a of their units are not members or shareholders of the petitioner
purchaser of the condominium unit, a stockholder of the condominium corporation,
petitioner pursuant to Section 2 of the Condominium Act,
Republic Act No. 4726; that the dispute is intra-corporate and 2. The City Court and the CFI have jurisdiction.
is consequently under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Securities & Exchange Commission as provided in Section 5 of Private respondents have not yet fully paid the purchase price,
P.D. No. 902-A. hence they are not shareholders. As a result, the instant case
The petitioner filed its opposition thereto, alleging that the for collection cannot be a "controversy arising out of
private respondent who had not fully paid for the unit was not intracorporate or partnership relations between and among
the owner thereof, consequently was not the holder of a stockholders, members or associates; between any or all of
separate interest which would make her a stockholder, and that them and the corporation, partnership or association of which