Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Indiviso Share in Lot No. 2798. However, Because The Property Had Not Yet Been

    Uploaded by

    lorelei louise
    13 views1 page
    1) Spouses Alejandrino left a 219 square meter property to their six children, but the estate was not properly settled or divided according to the Rules of Court. 2) Petitioner Mauricia acquired 97.43 square meters by allegedly purchasing shares from siblings, but respondent Licerio Nique also purchased 121.67 square meters from Mauricia's sister Laurencia. 3) The issue is whether Laurencia, as an heir, could validly sell specific portions of the undivided property to a third party.

    Original Description:

    Alejandrino v CA Case Digest

    Original Title

    62. GR No_114151

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Spouses Alejandrino left a 219 square meter property to their six children, but the estate was not properly settled or divided according to the Rules of Court. 2) Petitioner Mauricia acquired 97.43 square meters by allegedly purchasing shares from siblings, but respondent Licerio Nique also purchased 121.67 square meters from Mauricia's sister Laurencia. 3) The issue is whether Laurencia, as an heir, could validly sell specific portions of the undivided property to a third party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    13 views1 page

    Indiviso Share in Lot No. 2798. However, Because The Property Had Not Yet Been

    Uploaded by

    lorelei louise
    1) Spouses Alejandrino left a 219 square meter property to their six children, but the estate was not properly settled or divided according to the Rules of Court. 2) Petitioner Mauricia acquired 97.43 square meters by allegedly purchasing shares from siblings, but respondent Licerio Nique also purchased 121.67 square meters from Mauricia's sister Laurencia. 3) The issue is whether Laurencia, as an heir, could validly sell specific portions of the undivided property to a third party.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    G.R. No.

    114151

    MAURICIA ALEJANDRINO, Petitioner

    -versus-

    THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, HON. BENIGNO G. GAVIOLA, RTC-9,


    CEBU CITY, and LICERIO P. NIQUE, Respondents

    Art. 493. An alienation of a co-owned property shall be limited to the portion which
    may be allotted to (the seller) in the division upon the termination of the co-
    ownership.

    September 17, 1998

    FACTS OF THE CASE


    Spouses Alejandrino left their six children a 219-square-meter Lot 2798 in
    Mambaling, Cebu City. Upon the demise of the Alejandrino spouses, the property should
    have been divided among their children with each child having a share of 36.50 square
    meters. However, the estate of the Alejandrino spouses was not settled in accordance
    with the procedure outlined in the Rules of Court. Petitioner Mauricia (one of the children)
    acquired a total of 97.43 square meters after allegedly purchasing some of her siblings’
    share. It turned out, however, that a third party named Licerio Nique, the private
    respondent, also purchased portions of the siblings’ property, totaling to 121.67 square
    meters from Mauricia’s sister, Laurencia.

    ISSUE/S
    Whether as an heir of the Alejandrino property, Laurencia may validly sell specific
    portions thereof to a third party

    CONCLUSION
    No. In the instant case, Laurencia was within her hereditary rights in selling her pro
    indiviso share in Lot No. 2798. However, because the property had not yet been
    partitioned in accordance with the Rules of Court, no particular portion of the property
    could be identified as yet and delineated as the object of the sale. A co-owner has the
    right to alienate his pro-indiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent
    of the other co-owners. Nevertheless, as a mere part owner, he cannot alienate the
    shares of the other co-owners. The prohibition is premised on the elementary rule that
    “no one can give what he does not have” (Nemo dat quod non habet).

    You might also like