SUMMARY OF CASES on PROPERTY (Midterm) Prepared by: Arvin Antonio V. Ortiz Art. 476.

Whenever there is a cloud on title to real property or any interest therein, by reason of any instrument, record, claim, encumbrance or proceeding which is apparently valid or effective but is in truth and in fact invalid, ineffective, voidable, or unenforceable, and may be prejudicial to said title, an action may be brought to remove such cloud or to quiet the title. An action may also be brought to prevent a cloud from being cast upon title to real property or any interest therein. Heirs of Olviga vs. CA, Has the action prescribed? NO. An action for reconveyance of a parcel of GR 10483, October 21, 1993 land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes in ten years, the point of reference being the date of registration of the deed of the date of the issuance of the certificate of title over the property. But this rule applies only when the plaintiff is not in possession of the property, since if a person is claiming to be the owner thereof is in actual possession of the property, the right to seek reconveyance, which in effect seeks to quiet title to the property, does not prescribe. In this case, private respondents and their predecessors-in-interest were in actual possession of the property since 1950. Their undisturbed possession gave them the continuing right to seek the aid of the court of equity to determine the nature of the adverse claim of petitioners, who in 1988 disturbed their possession. Metrobank vs. Alejo, Is the subject judgment considered a cloud NO. It would not be proper to consider the GR 141970, September 10, that would warrant a quieting of title case? subject judgment as a cloud that would warrant 2001 the filing of an action for quieting of title, because to do so would require the court hearing the action to modify or interfere with the judgment or order of another co-equal court. A court has no power to do so, for it will lead to confusion and seriously hinder the administration of justice. Secuya vs. Vda. De Selma, Did Secuyas title have the effect of casting a NO. Secuya et.al. failed to show that they have GR 136021, February 22, cloud over Selmas property? an equitable or legal title to the subject real 2000 property. Bank of Commerce vs. San What must the court resolve in an action to quiet In an action for quieting of title, the competent Pablo, GR 167848, April 27, title? court is tasked to determine the respective rights 2007 of the complainant and other claimants, not only to place things in their proper place, to make one who has no rights to said immovable respect and not disturb the other, but also for the benefit of both, so that he who has the right would see every cloud of doubt over the property dissipated, and he could afterwards without fear introduce the improvements he may desire, to use, and even to abuse the property as he deems best. Efren Tandog vs. Renato Should the case for quieting of title prosper? NO. While petitioners alleged that respondents Macapagal, GR 144208, claim of adverse possession is a cloud on the September 11, 2007 petitioners interest in the land. But such allegation has not been proved. The alleged 1 Arvin Antonio Ortiz| University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education

falsified documents relied upon by respondents to justify their possession were merely marked as exhibits but were never formally offered in evidence by petitioners. It is important that petitioners must first establish their legal or equitable title to, or interest in the real property which is the subject matter of the action. Art. 484. There is co-ownership whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. In default of contracts, or of special provisions, co-ownership shall be governed by the provisions of this Title. Elna Mercado-Fehr vs. Is Suite 204 co-owned property? YES. Suite 204 was acquired during the parties Bruno Fehr, GR 152716, cohabitation. Under Art. 147 of the Family Code, October 23, 2003 said property should be governed by the rules on co-ownership. Art. 147 applies to unions of parties who are legally capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void, as in the case at bar. This provision creates a coownership with respect to the properties they acquire during their cohabitation. Elino Rivera et.al. vs. Heirs Does co-ownership exist between parties to an NO. Generally, no co-ownership exists between of Romulado Rivera, GR adulterous relationship? parties to an adulterous relationship. In such a 141501, July 21, 2006 relationship, it is necessary for each of the partners to prove his or her actual contribution to the acquisition of property in order to be able to lay claim to any portion of it. Sps. Serafin & Anita Si vs. Were the brothers co-owners of the subject lot NO. There was already an extrajudicial partition CA, GR 122047, October 12, when 1/3 of it was sold to Si? of the property. After the physical division of the 2000 lot among the brothers, the community ownership terminated, and the right of preemption or redemption for each brother was no longer available. Anita Ungab-Velasco et.al. Are the respondents co-owners of the subject YES. Even without the Affidavit of Timoteo, there vs. Amancia Ungab-Grado land? is still evidence on record proving that the et.al., GR 163081, June 15, respondents and Timoteo indeed owned the land 2007 in common. For one, there is the Affidavit of Acknowledgment signed by Anita herself. Art. 485. The share of the co-owners, in the benefits as well as in the charges, shall be proportional to their respective interests. Any stipulation in a contract to the contrary shall be void. The portions belonging to the co-owners in the co-ownership shall be presumed equal, unless the contrary is proved. Pedro Bongalon vs. CA, GR Did Pedro acquire ownership of the entire Lot NO. Pedro Bongalons interest in Lot No. 525-A 142441, November 10, 2004 No. 525-A under the Deed of Absolute Sale? covers only the undivided shares of Cirila, Trinidad, Teodora, and Conchita. He did not acquire ownership of the entire Lot. As the others, namely, the heirs of Benito Bongalon, and the other children of Jacoba & Emilio did not sign either Exhibit B or Exhibit 2, they remained coowners of the Lot. While each co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate it, the alienation affects only the portion which pertains to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. Adoracion Cruz et.al. vs. Was the mortgaged property the exclusive YES. Since a partition legally made confers upon CA, GR 122904, April 15, property of Arnel Cruz when it was mortgaged? each heir the exclusive ownership of the 2005 property adjudicated to him, it follows that Arnel Cruz acquired absolute ownership over the 2 Arvin Antonio Ortiz| University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education

specific parcels of land assigned to him in the Deed of Partial Partition, including the property subject of this case. As the absolute owner thereof then, Arnel Cruz had the right to enjoy and dispose of the property, as well as the right to constitute a real estate mortgage over the same without securing the consent of petitioners. Art. 487. Any one of the co-owners may bring an action in ejectment. Sps. Coja vs. CA, GR May a co-owner file an action for recovery of 151153, December 10, 2007 possession against a co-owner who takes exclusive possession of the entire co-owned property? YES. A co-owner may file an action for recovery of possession against a co-owner who takes exclusive possession of the entire co-owned property. But the only effect of such action is recognition of the co-ownership. The courts cannot proceed with the actual partitioning of the co-owned property. In fine, judicial or extrajudicial partition is necessary to effect physical division of the subject 120-square meter property. YES. For the respondents did not consent to the sale. Even though a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not void, only the rights of the coowner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property. YES. For the holding of the Court, see ruling in Sps. Coja vs. CA above.

Republic vs. Heirs of Dignos-Sorono, GR 171571, March 24, 2008

Do respondents have the right to recover the lots?

Manuel De Guia vs. CA & Can Abjeo recover the undivided portion of Abejo, GR 120864, October the fishpond before partition? 8. 2003 Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and 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. Lilia Sanchez vs. CA & Does Teria have the right to occupy 5/6 of the NO, because the property has not been Virginia Teria property? physically partitioned yet. Before the partition of a land or thing held in common, no individual or co-owner can claim title to any definite portion thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land or thing. Lily Elizabeth BravoWas the Deed of Sale void? NO. The sale was not void on the following Guerrero et.al. vs. Edward grounds: (a) The sale was made before the P. Bravo, GR 152658, July effectivity of the New Civil Code. Under the Old 29, 2005 Civil Code, the husband could alienate conjugal partnership property for valuable consideration without the wifes consent. (b) Even under the New Civil Code, the Deed of Sale is not void, but only voidable. Under the New Civil Code, only the wife can assail the validity of the sale, which in this case already prescribed, having not filed by the spouse within ten years. Tomas Claudio Memorial Was the sale made by Mariano to TCMC valid? NO. Even if a co-owner sells the whole property College vs. CA, GR 124262, as his, the sale will affect only his own share but October 12, 1999 not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. The sale or other disposition affects only the sellers share pro indiviso, and 3 Arvin Antonio Ortiz| University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education

the transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantors share in the partition of the property owned in common. Since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null and void. But only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property. Heirs of Balite vs. Rodrigo Was the sale valid? YES. The sale is valid, but only with respect to the Lim, GR 152168, December aliquot share of the selling co-owner. 10, 2004 Furthermore, the sale is subject to the results of the partition upon the termination of the coownership. Art. 494. No co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership. Each co-owner may demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common, insofar as his share is concerned. Nevertheless, an agreement to keep the thing undivided for a certain period of time, not exceeding ten years, shall be valid. This term may be extended by a new agreement. A donor or testator may prohibit partition for a period which shall not exceed twenty years. Neither shall there be any partition when it is prohibited by law. 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. Tirso Monteroso vs. CA, GR Is the cause of action of Tirso one for partition YES. Being a compulsory heir of Don Fabian, Tirso 105608, April 30, 2008 and thus imprescriptible? has the right to compel partition of the properties comprising the intestate estate of Don Fabian as a measure to get his hereditary share. His right as an heir to a share of the inheritance covers all the properties comprising the intestate estate of Don Fabian at the moment of his death. Being a co-owner of that intestate estate, Tirsos right over a share thereof is imprescriptible. As a matter of law, acquisitive prescription does not apply nor set in against compulsory heirs insofar as their pro-indiviso share or legitime is concerned, unless said heirs repudiate their share. Epitacio De Lima et.al. vs. Has Eulalio and Juanitas action for partition YES. When a co-owner of the property in CA, GR 46296, September prescribed? question executed a deed of partition and on the 24, 1991 strength thereof obtained the cancellation of the title in the name of their predecessor and the issuance of a new one wherein he appears as the new owner of the property, thereby in effect denying or repudiating the ownership of the other co-owners over their shares, the statute of limitations started to run for the purpose of the action instituted by the latter seeking a declaration of the existence of the co-ownership and of their rights thereunder. Since an action for reconveyance of land based on implied or constructive trust prescribes after ten years, it is from the date of the issuance of such title that the effective assertion of adverse title for purposes of the statute of limitations is counted. As the certificate of title was notice to the whole world of his exclusive title to the land, such rejection was binding on the other heirs and 4 Arvin Antonio Ortiz| University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education

started as against them the period of prescription. When petitioners filed their action for reconveyance and/ or to compel partition on February 29, 1968, such action was already barred by prescription. Whatever claims the other co-heirs could have validly asserted before can no longer be invoked by them at this time. Arturo Trinidad vs. CA, GR Did Felix and Lourdes acquire ownership of the NO. Private respondents have not acquired 118904, April 20, 1998 properties by acquisitive prescription? ownership of the property in question by acquisitive prescription. No prescription runs in favor of a co-owner or co-heir against his or her co-owners or co-heirs, so long as he or she expressly or impliedly recognizes the coownership. In this case, it is undisputed that, prior to the action for petition, petitioner, in the concept of a co-owner, was receiving from private respondents his share of the produce of the land in dispute. Until such time, recognition of the co-ownership by private respondents was beyond question. Although private respondents had possessed these parcels openly since 1940 and had not shared with petitioner the produce of the land during the pendency of this case, still, they manifested no repudiation of the coownership. Consolacion Austria vs. Was the RTC correct in ordering the partition of YES as to its order of partition, but NO as to the Lichauco, GR 170080, April the property or authorizing its sale to a third order of sale. There is no question that a co4, 2007 party? ownership exists between petitioner and respondents. To this extent, the trial court was correct in decreeing partition in line with the Civil Code provision that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain the co-ownership. But the trial court went astray when it also authorized the sale of the subject properties to a third party and the division of the proceeds thereof. What makes this portion of the decision all the more objectionable is the fact that the trial court conditioned the sale upon the price and term acceptable to plaintiffs only, and adjudicated the proceeds of the sale again only to plaintiffs. Art. 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their concurrence. But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. Julita Rombaua Panganiban Can the petitioners intervene in the proceedings YES. As a result of the trial courts refusal to et.al. vs. Julita Oamil, GR in Civil Case No. 140-0-93 in order to protect abide by the decision in Special Civil Action No. 149313, January 22, 2008 their rights as co-owners of the subject 340-0-86, the rights of the petitioners have been property? unnecessarily transgressed, thereby giving them the right to seek relief in court in order to annul the October 23, 1997 Order of the trial court which substantially and wrongly modified its original decision in Civil Case No. 140-0-93. It was clear mistake for the trial court to have gone against the final and executor decision in Special Civil Action No. 340-0-86 and its original decision, which does not award a definite portion of the 5 Arvin Antonio Ortiz| University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education

disputed property to Partenio because , as a court litigating an ordinary civil suit, it is not authorized to partition the subject property but only to determine the rights and obligations of the parties in respect to Partenios undivided share in the commonly owned property. As a result of this mistake, the petitioners are entitled to relief.

Arvin Antonio Ortiz| University of Mindanao-College of Legal Education