1 Rights of each co-owner as to thing owned in common (Arts. 485-495; 1620, 1623) Aguilar vs.

CA Facts: Petitioner Vergilio and respondent Senen bought a house and lot in Paraaque where their father could spend and enjoy his remaining years in a peaceful neighborhood. They initially agreed that Vergilio will get 2/3 and Senen will get 1/3; but later they agreed on equal shares. Senen was left in the said lot to take care of their father since Vergilios family was in Cebu. After their fathers death petitioner demanded from private respondent that the latter vacate the house and that the property be sold and proceeds thereof divided among them but the latter refused. Petitioner then filed to compel the sale of the property. The chunk of the issue tackled by the courts was regarding the pre-trial. Respondent filed a motion to cancel Pre-trial since the counsel had to accompany his wife in Dumaguete City where she would be a principal sponsor in a wedding. CFI denied the motion; and the pre-trial proceeded on the scheduled date. The respondents did not appear thus they were declared in default. The trial went on ex parte without the respondent and held that the property should be sold to a third party and that the proceeds be distributed to the parties; in addition respondent was made to pay rent from the time the action was filed. Respondents appealed this and the decision was reversed by the CA saying that the TC erred in declaring respondents in default; the case was then remanded to the trial court. Hence this appeal. Issue: Whether or not the trial court was correct with regards to the sale and rent? Held: YES, with a few modification. Petitioner and respondents are co-owners of subject house and lot in equal shares; either one of them may demand the sale of the house and lot at any time and the other cannot object to such demand; thereafter the proceeds of the sale shall be divided equally according to their respective interests. Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is concerned. Corollary to this rule, Art. 498 of the Code states that whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. SC held that of the proceeds should go to the petitioner and the remainder to the respondent (1,200 each.) Also rent was awarded 1,200 pesos per month with legal interest from the time the trial court ordered the respondent to vacate, for the use and enjoyment of the other half of the property. BASIS: When petitioner filed an action to compel the sale of the property and the trial court granted the petition and ordered the ejectment of respondent, the co-ownership was deemed terminated and the right to enjoy the possession jointly also ceased.

2 Alienate, mortgage or encumber and dispose of his ideal share Ocampo vs. Ocampo Facts: Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander-Ocampo have ten children, including the petitioners and respondents to this case. In the celebration of their marriage, they acquired several properties, all of which are owned in common by their children. However, the residential/commercial lot in Nabua, Camarines Sur is ostensibly owned by Fidela Ocampo, although the latter acknowledges that the same is co-owned by her and her siblings. Aside from the first complaint that they have filed before the trial court, petitioners also filed a supplemental complaint where they allege that Fidela Ocampo cancelled the first TCT of the lot in Nabua and issued a new one in the form of Deed of Donation Inter Vivos in favor of Belen Ocampo-Barrito and her spouse Vicente Barrito. Both the donor of the donee are notoriously aware that the lot is still under dispute in the petitioners' first complaint, nevertheless, the two still pursued the donation. Petitioners also allege that the transfer of ownership from Fidela to Belen, daughter of another defendant Felicidad, is tainted with fraud, actual and deliberate, to deprive plaintiffs of their legitimate share therein, knowing as they do that the same are a co-ownership of the original parties plaintiffs and defendants herein. Defendants, on the other hand, allege that Fidela has been the absolute owner of the property since 1949, and that its title is free from all encumbrances and adverse claims. In 1984, Fidela conveyed the property to Belen via a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos and since September 13, 1987, Belen has been the absolute owner of the same property. In its decision, the Appellate Court said that other than the Acknowledgment of Co-ownership executed by Respondent Fidela Ocampo, no documentary evidence was offered to establish petitioners claim of co-ownership. It also said that respondents were able to give clear proof of their ownership of the property: the Transfer Certificate of Title and the corresponding Tax Declaration in the name of Fidela, and later of Belen Ocampo-Barrito.

Issue: Whether or not the deed of sale is valid where a deed of donation inter vivos entered in faith deprives the heirs of their hereditary shares.

bad

Held: No. Belen presented a Deed of Donation Inter Vivos executed on January 13, 1984, between herself as donee and Fidela as donor. This act shows the immediate source of the formers claim of sole ownership of the property. A donation as a mode of acquiring ownership results in an effective transfer of title to the property from the donor to the donee. Petitioners stubbornly rely on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership allegedly executed by Fidela in favor of her siblings. What they overlook is the fact that at the time of the execution of the Acknowledgement -- assuming that its authenticity and due execution were proven -- the property had already been donated to Belen. The Deed of Donation, which is the prior document, is clearly inconsistent with the document relied upon by petitioners. We agree with the RTCs ratiocination: "On the claim of plaintiffs that defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo herself made a written acknowledgement for her co-ownership over all the properties disputed with plaintiffs in this case, the same cannot be considered as a declaration against Fidelas interest since the alleged acknowledgement was written and executed on 24 December 1985 when she was no longer the owner of the property as the year previous, on 13 January 1984, she had already donated all her properties to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, so that, in effect, she had no more properties with which she can have an interest to declare against."

3 Effects of Transaction by each Co-owner Pamplona vs. Morato Facts: Flaviano Moreto and Monica Maniega were husband and wife with 6 children. During their marriage, they acquired adjacent lots Nos. 1495, 4545, and 1496.Monica Maniega died intestate. more than (6) years after, Flaviano Moreto, without the consent of the heirs of his said deceased wife, and before any liquidation of theconjugal partnership, executed in favor of Geminiano Pamplona, the deed of absolute sale covering lot No.1495 for P900.00.The spouses Geminiano Pamplona and Apolonia Onte constructed their house on the eastern part of lot 1496 as Flaviano Moreto, at the time of the sale, pointed to it as the land which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona. Flaviano Moreto died intestate. In 1961, the plaintiffs demanded on the defendants to vacate the premises on the ground that Flaviano Moreto had no right to sell the lot which he sold to Geminiano Pamplona as the same belongs to the conjugal partnership of Flaviano and his deceased wife. The spouses Pamplona refused to vacate hence, this suit was instituted seeking for the declaration of the nullity of the deed of sale as regards one-half of the property subject matter of said deed. Issue: Whether petitioners are entitled to the fullownership of the property in litigation, or only one-half of the same. Held: The three lots have a total area of 2,346 sq.meters. It is therefore, clear that the three lots constitute one big land. They are not separate properties located indifferent places but they abut each other. And since Flaviano Moreto was entitled to one-half pro-indiviso of the entire land area or 1,173 sq. meters as his share, he had a perfect legal and lawful right to dispose of 781 sq. meters of his share to the Pamplona spouses. Moreover, private respondents, as heirs are duty-bound to comply with the provisions of Articles 1458 and1495, Civil Code, which is the obligation of the vendor of the property of delivering and transferring the ownership of the whole property sold, which is transmitted on his death to his heirs, the herein private respondents. Under Article 776, New Civil Code, the inheritance which private respondents received from their deceased parents and/or predecessors-in-interest included all the property rights and obligations which were not extinguished by their parents' death.

4 Effects of Transaction by each Co-owner Carvajal vs. CA Facts: The subject lot was originally owned by Hermogenes Espique and his wife and after their death, the lot was succeeded by their children, Maria, Evaristo, Faustino, Estefanio and Tropinio. Petitioner then averred that he purchased the 2/5 of the lot from Estefanio and respondents purchased 1/5 of the lot from Evaristo. The part of the land in controversy was the 1/5 portion. This prompted the private respondents to file a case of ejectment and recovery of possession, where in fact there has been no partition yet on the subject lot. Both the lower court and the appellate court ruled in favor of the respondents. Hence, this petition. Issue: Whether the co-owners may sell a specific part of the co-owned property without partition. Held: No. The fact that the sale executed by Evaristo G. Espique in favor of respondents and the sale executed by Estefanio Espique in favor of petitioner were made before the partition of the property among the co-heirs does not annul or invalidate the deeds of sale and both sales are valid. However, the interests thereby acquired by petitioner and respondents are limited only to the parts that may be ultimately assigned to Estefanio and Evaristo, respectively, upon the partition of the estate 7 subject to provisions on subrogation of the other co-heirs to the rights of the stranger-purchaser provided in Article 1088 of the Civil Code. Unless a project of partition is effected, each heir cannot claim ownership over a definite portion of the inheritance. Without partition, either by agreement between the parties of by judicial proceeding, a co-heir cannot dispose of a specific portion of the estate. For where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate such heirs. 1 Upon the death of a person, each of his heirs becomes the undivided owner of the whole estate left wtih respect to the part of portion which might be adjudicated to him, a community of ownership being thus formed among the coowners of the estate or co-heirs while it remains undivided