Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1) ELNA MERCADO-FEHR, petitioner, vs. BRUNO b. Nissan Sentra with Plate No. FDJ-533 (1994 model)
FEHR, respondent.
Furthermore, Suite 204, LCG Condominium with an area of
[G.R. No. 152716. October 23, 2003] 113.54 sq. m. and covered by Condominium Certificate of
Title NO. 14735 is hereby declared the EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY
FACTS: of respondent, BRUNO FRANZ FEHR. Accordingly, petitioner is
hereby directed to transfer ownership of Suite 204 in the
This case arose from a petition for declaration of nullity name of respondent, covered by Condominium Certificate of
of marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity to Title No. 14735, being respondents exclusive property,
comply with the essential marital obligations under Article 36 acquired prior to his marriage.
of the Family Code filed by petitioner Elna Mercado-Fehr
against respondent Bruno Fehr before the Regional Trial Petitioner Elna Mercado-Fehr filed a motion for
Court of Makati in March 1997. reconsideration of said Order with respect to the adjudication
of Suite 204, LCG Condominium and the support of the
After due proceedings, the trial court declared the children. Petitioner alleged that Suite 204 was purchased on
marriage between petitioner and respondent void ab installment basis at the time when petitioner and respondent
initio and ordered the dissolution of their conjugal were living exclusively with each other as husband and wife
partnership of property. without the benefit of marriage, hence the rules on co-
On August 24, 1999, the trial court issued an Order ownership should apply in accordance with Article 147 of the
resolving the various motions filed by respondent after the Family Code.
case had been decided. The Order pertained to the properties RTC-- Resolving said motion, the trial court held in an
held by the parties, thus: Order dated October 5, 2000 that since the marriage
between petitioner and respondent was declared
After a careful scrutiny of the inventory of properties void abintio, the rules on co-ownership should apply in the
submitted by both parties, the Court finds the following liquidation and partition of the properties they own in
properties to be excluded from the conjugal properties, common pursuant to Article 147 of the Family Code. The
namely: court, however, noted that the parties have already agreed in
principle to divide the properties and/or proceeds from the
a) the Bacolod property covered by Transfer Certificate of sale thereof proportionately among them and their children
Title No. T-137232, considering that the same is owned by as follows: 1/3 for petitioner, 1/3 for respondent and 1/3 for
petitioners parents, Herminio Mercado and Catalina D. the children. It also affirmed its previous ruling
Mercado xxx and that Suite 204 of LCG Condominium was acquired prior to the
couples cohabitation and therefore pertained solely to
b) Suite 204 of the LCG Condominium covered by respondent.
Condominium Certificate of Title No. 14735, considering that
On November 28, 2000, petitioner filed a notice of
the same was purchased on installment basis by respondent
appeal questioning the October 5, 2000 Order of the trial
with his exclusive funds prior to his marriage, as evidenced by
court. ]Respondent filed an Opposition to the Notice of
a Contract to Sell dated July 26, 1983. xxx
Appeal. ]On January 12, 2001, petitioner withdrew the notice
of appeal ]and instead filed on the following day a special civil
Accordingly, the conjugal properties of the petitioner and action for certiorari and prohibition with the Court of
respondent shall be distributed in the following manner: Appeals, questioning the findings of the trial court in its Order
dated October 5, 2000.
TO PETITIONER ELNA MERCADO:
CA -- The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October
a. Ground Floor, LCG Condominium, with an area of 671.84 26, 2001, dismissed the petition for certiorari for lack of
sq. m., covered by Condominium Certificate of Title No. merit. The appellate court stated that petitioner has not
14734; and shown any reason to warrant the issuance of a writ of
certiorari as the errors she raised were mere errors of
judgment which were the proper subject of an ordinary
b. Tamaraw FX (1995 model)
appeal, not a petition for certiorari.
Petitioner filed a motion for reconsideration of said respect to the properties they acquire during their
Decision, which was also denied by the appellate court. cohabitation.
We held in Valdes vs. Regional Trial
Hence this petition.
Court, Br. 102, Quezon City:
ISSUE:
This peculiar kind of co-ownership applies when a man and a
Whether or not the Suite 204 of LGC Condominium is an woman, suffering no legal impediment to marry each other,
exclusive property of Bruno Fehr. so exclusively live together as husband and wife under a void
marriage or without the benefit of marriage. The term
capacitated in the provision (in the first paragraph of the law)
RULING: refers to the legal capacity of a party to contract marriage,
i.e., any male or female of the age of eighteen years or
No. upwards not under any of the impediments mentioned in
Article 37 and 38 of the Code.
It appears from the facts, as found by the trial court,
that in March 1983, after two years of long-distance
courtship, petitioner left Cebu City and moved in with Under this property regime, property acquired by both
respondent in the latters residence in Metro Manila. Their spouses through their work and industry shall be governed by
relations bore fruit and their first child, Michael Bruno Fehr, the rules on equal co-ownership. Any property acquired
was born on December 3, 1983. The couple got married during the union is prima facie presumed to have been
on March 14, 1985. In the meantime, they purchased on obtained through their joint efforts. A party who did not
installment a condominium unit, Suite 204, at LCG participate in the acquisition of the property shall still be
Condominium, as evidenced by a Contract to Sell dated July considered as having contributed thereto jointly if said partys
26, 1983 executed by respondent as the buyer and J.V. Santos efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of the family
Commercial Corporation as the seller. Petitioner also signed household.
the contract as witness, using the name Elna Mercado
Fehr. Upon completion of payment, the title to the The disputed property, Suite 204 of LCG Condominium,
condominium unit was issued in the name of petitioner. was purchased on installment basis on July 26, 1983, at the
time when petitioner and respondent were already living
In light of these facts, the contentions of the petitioner together. Hence, it should be considered as common
has more credence that Suite 204 was acquired during the property of petitioner and respondent.
parties cohabitation. Accordingly, under Art 147 of the Family
Code, said property should be governed by the rules on co- As regards the settlement of the common properties of
ownership. petitioner and respondent, we hold that the Civil Code
provisions on co-ownership should apply. There is nothing in
Article 147. When a man and a woman who are capacitated the records that support the pronouncement of the trial
to marry each other, live exclusively with each other as court that the parties have agreed to divide the properties
husband and wife without the benefit of marriage or under into three1/3 share each to the petitioner, the respondent
a void marriage, their wages and salaries shall be owned by and their children. Petitioner, in fact, alleges in her petition
them in equal shares and the property acquired by both of before this Court that the parties have agreed on a four-way
them through their work or industry shall be governed by division of the properties1/4 share each to the petitioner and
the rules on co-ownership. the respondent, and 1/4 share each to their two children.
Moreover, respondents argument that the three-way
partition is in accordance with Articles 50 and 51 of the
In the absence of proof to the contrary, properties acquired
Family Code does not hold water as said provisions relate
while they lived together shall be presumed to have been
only to voidable marriages and exceptionally to void
obtained by their joint efforts, work or industry, and shall be
marriages under Article 40 of the Family Code, i.e., the
owned by them in equal shares. For purposes of this Article,
declaration of nullity of a subsequent marriage contracted by
a party who did not participate in the acquisition by the
a spouse of a prior void marriage before the latter is judicially
other party of any property shall be deemed to have
declared void.
contributed jointly to the acquisition thereof if the formers
efforts consisted in the care and maintenance of their family
and of the household.
The Supreme Court held that Suite 204 of LCG
Condominium is a common property of petitioner and
Article 147 applies to unions of parties who are legally
respondent and the property regime of the parties should be
capacitated and not barred by any impediment to contract
divided in accordance with the law on co-ownership.
marriage, but whose marriage is nonetheless void, ]as in the
case at bar. This provision creates a co-ownership with 2) SPOUSES SERAFIN SI AND ANITA BONODE SI, petitioners,
vs. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES JOSE ARMADA and
REMEDIOS ALMANZOR (deceased, and substituted by meters each to Crisostomo and Jose. The three deeds of sale
heirs: Cynthia Armada, Danilo Armada and Vicente particularly described the portion conveyed to each son in
Armada) respondents. metes and bounds. Petitioners contend that since the
property was already three distinct parcels of land, there was
[G.R. No. 122047. October 12, 2000]
no longer co-ownership among the brothers. Hence, Jose and
Severo, Jr. had no right of redemption when Crisostomo sold
FACTS: his share to the spouses Si. Petitioners point out that it was
Spouses Severo Armada, Sr and Escolastica owned a only because the Armada brothers failed to submit the
parcel of land consisting of 340 square meters, situated in San necessary subdivision plan to the Office of the Register of
Jose District, Pasay City, the property in dispute, covered by Deeds in Pasay City that separate titles were not issued and
Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. (17345) 2460. During TCT No. 16007 was issued and registered in the names of
the lifetime of the spouses, the property was transferred to Jose, Crisostomo, and Severo, Jr.
their children and the Registry of Deeds, Pasay City, issued
TCT No. 16007 in the names of the three sons, as follows :
Trial Court no co-ownership, DoS valid, no redemption
(1) "DR. CRISOSTOMO R. ARMADA, married to
available for the other two siblings:
Cresenciana V. Alejo, 113.34 Square Meters;
The trial court found that the disputed land was not part
(2) JOSE R. ARMADA, married to RemediosAlmanzor,
of an undivided estate. It held that the three deeds of
113.33 Square Meters; and absolute sale[12]technically described the portion sold to each
(3) DR. SEVERO R. ARMADA, Jr., single, all of legal age, son.The portions belonging to the three sons were separately
Filipinos." declared for taxation purposes with the Assessor's Office of
Pasay City on September 21, 1970.[13] Jose's testimony that
Annotated also in the title is the total cancellation of the land was undivided was contradicted by his wife when
said title "... by virtue of the Deed of Sale dated March 28, she said they had been receiving rent from the property
1979, executed by CRESENCIANA V. ALEJO, as attorney-in-fact specifically allotted to Jose.[14] More significantly, on January
of CRISOSTOMO R. ARMADA, conveying 113.34 square 9, 1995, the Registry of Deeds of Pasay City cancelled TCT
meters of the property herein, in favor of ANITA BONODE SI, 24751 and issued three new titles as follows: (1) TCT
married to Serafin D. Si, for the sum of P75,000.00, issuing in 134594[15] in favor of Severo Armada, Jr.; (2) TCT
lieu thereof Transfer Certificate of Title No. 24751, Reg. Book 134595[16] under the name of Anita Bonode Si, married to
T-102. (Doc. No. 17, Page No. 5, Book No. 253 of Notary Serafin Si; and (3) TCT 134596[17] owned by Jose Armada,
Public of Pasay City, Manila, Julian Florentino)." married to RemediosAlmanzor. All these are on record.
On April 15, 1980, herein spouses Jose Armada and CA co-ownership exists:
RemediosAlmanzor, filed a complaint for Annulment of Deed "A careful examination of TCT No. 16007 shows that the
of Sale and Reconveyance of Title with Damages, against portion sold by virtue of the Deeds of Sale to the Armada
herein petitioners Anita and Serafin Si and ConradoIsada, brothers do not appear in the said title, neither does it
brother-in-law of Cresenciana. Isada brokered the sale. indicate the particular area sold. Moreover, no evidence was
The complaint alleged that ConradoIsada sold presented to show that the Register of Deeds issued TCT No.
Crisostomo's share by making it appear that Cresenciana, the 16007 on the basis of the said deeds of Sale. In fact, TCT No.
attorney-in-fact of her husband, is a Filipino citizen, residing 16007 shows that the lot is co-owned by Jose, Crisostomo
with Isada at Cubao, Quezon City. By this time, Crisostomo and Severo, Jr. in the proportion of 113.33, 113.34 and
and Cresenciana had migrated and were already citizens of 113.33 sq. m. respectively.
the United States of America. It also stated that when Furthermore, the evidence on record shows that the Deed of
petitioners registered the deed of absolute sale they inserted Absolute Sale, executed by Cresencia Armada in favor of
the phrase "... and that the co-owners are not interested in defendants Si, stated that the portion sold was the 'undivided
buying the same in spite of notice to them.", and that one hundred thirteen & 34/100 (113.34) square meters' of
petitioners knew of the misrepresentations of the parcel of land covered by TCT NO. 16007 of the Registry
Conrado. Further, the complaint alleged that the other of Deeds for Pasay City, which means that what was sold to
owners, Jose and Severo, Jr., had no written notice of the defendants are still undetermined and unidentifiable, as the
sale; and that all upon learning of the sale to the spouses Si, area sold remains a portion of the whole.
private respondents filed a complaint for annulment of sale Moreover, plaintiff Remedi[o]s Armada testified that on
and reconveyance of title with damages, claiming they had a March 27, 1979, Crisostomo Armada, thru his attorney-in-fact
right of redemption. and co-defendant, CresencianaAlejo, sold his undivided
113.34 share to defendants, Sps. Si as evidenced by a Deed of
Petitioners, on the other hand, alleged that on October Absolute Sale, and presented for registration with the
2, 1954, Escolastica, with the consent of her husband Register of Deeds without notifying plaintiffs of the sale.
executed three separate deeds of sale conveying 113.34 Instead, it appears that the phrase 'and that the co-owners
square meters of the property to Severo, and 113.33 square
are not interested in buying the same inspite of notice to RAMON OCAMPO, MIGUEL OCAMPO, JUANA OCAMPO,
them', was inserted in the Deed of Sale. ANDRES OCAMPO SR., VIOLETA OCAMPO, MERCEDITA
Hence, the present petition OCAMPO, ANTONIA OCAMPO, ELISA OCAMPO, BEATRIZ
OCAMPO, JUAN JOHNNY OCAMPO, JONAS OCAMPO, MARIA
ISSUE: Whether or not private respondents (Jose and Dr. DOLORES OCAMPO, REBECCA OCAMPO, FIDELA OCAMPO,
Severo Jr.) are co-owners and are entitled to redemption. LUIS OCAMPO JR. and ERNESTO O. FORTUNO,petitioners,
vs.
RULING: NO. FIDELA LL. OCAMPO, FELICIDAD LL. OCAMPO, BELEN
OCAMPO-BARRITO, VICENTE BARRITO, NEMESIO LL.
After the physical division of the lot among the brothers,
OCAMPO, IMELDA OCAMPO and JOSE
the community ownership terminated, and the right to OCAMPO, respondents.
redemption for each brother was no longer available.
Under Art. 484 of the Civil Code, there is co-ownership G.R. No. 150707 April 14, 2004
whenever the ownership of an undivided thing or right
belongs to different persons. There is no co-ownership when
the different portions owned by different people are already FACTS:
concretely determined and separately identifiable, even if not
yet technically described. The complaint alleges that during the lifetime of the
spouses Jose Ocampo and Juana Llander-Ocampo, they begot
As early as October 2, 1954, the lot in question had ten (10) children, namely: Fidela, Felix, Andres, Nemesio,
already been partitioned when their parents executed three Jose, Apolonia, Felicidad, Luisa, Rosario, and Luis.
(3) deed of sales (sic) in favor of Jose, Crisostomo and Severo,
all surnamed Armada, which documents purports to have
The complaint further alleges that during the
been registered with the Register of Deeds of Pasay City, on
lifetime of the spouses Jose Ocampo and Luisa Llander-
September 18, 1970, and as a consequence TCT No. 16007
Ocampo, they acquired several parcels of land and, upon
was issued. Notably, every portion conveyed and transferred
their death, left the following properties, namely:
to the three sons was definitely described and segregated
and with the corresponding technical description (sic). In
short, this is what we call extrajudicial partition. Moreover, (a) A parcel of residential/ commercial land situated
every portion belonging to the three sons has been declared in the poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur, covered
for taxation purposes with the Assessor's Office of Pasay City by TCT No. RT-4389(983) in the name of
on September 21, 1970. These are the unblinkable facts that FidelaOcampo;
the portion sold to defendant spouses Si by defendants
Crisostomo Armada and Cresenciana Armada was concretely (b) A parcel of residential land situated at San Luis,
determined and identifiable. The fact that the three portions Nabua, Camarines Sur;
are embraced in one certificate of title does not make said
portions less determinable or identifiable or distinguishable, (c) A parcel of land situated at Sto. Domingo, Nabua,
one from the other, nor that dominion over each portion less Camarines Sur.
exclusive, in their respective owners. Hence, no right of
redemption among co-owners exists." that all the above named parcels of land are actually owned
Moreover, we note that private respondent Jose in common by the children of the late spouses Jose Ocampo
Armada was well informed of the impending sale of and Juana LlanderOcampo although the land denominated as
Crisostomo's share in the land. In a letter dated February 22, parcel (a) of the complaint is ostensibly registered in the
1979, Jose told his brother Crisostomo: "Well you are the king name of FidelaOcampo alone but acknowledged by her as a
of yourselves, and you can sell your share of Leveriza." Co- property owned in common by all of them, brothers and
owners with actual notice of the sale are not entitled to sisters; that plaintiffs desire to partition said properties but
written notice. A written notice is a formal requisite to make defendants FidelaOcampo and Felicidad unlawfully and
certain that the co-owners have actual notice of the sale to unreasonably refuse to do so and moved by a common
enable them to exercise their right of redemption within the purpose, both of them mortgaged to the PNB the land
limited period of thirty days. But where the co-owners had denominated as parcel (a) of the complaint to secure the
actual notice of the sale at the time thereof and/or payment of a 110,000.00 loan, the proceeds of which were x
afterwards, a written notice of a fact already known to them, xx exclusively to the benefit of said defendants only; that the
would be superfluous. same defendants FidelaOcampo and FelicidadOcampo have
been receiving the fruits of the properties to the exclusion of
their co-heirs amounting to not less than 2,000.00 a year;
and, that because of their relationship, they undertook
3) APOLONIA LL. OCAMPO Now Substituted by MARIANO O. earnest efforts to amicably settle this controversy but
QUIEN, AMELITA Q. TAN, MILOVAN O. QUIEN, LUISA because of defendants FidelaOcampo and
OCAMPO-LLORIN, MELITA F. OCAMPO, FELIX OCAMPO JR.,
FelicidadOcampo[s] utterly unreasonable and unjustified property by donation inter vivos which she accepted in the
actuations, the same failed. same public instrument; that TCT No. 1364 was issued to
defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito on the strength of the
In their complaint, plaintiffs pray that judgment be donation inter vivos executed in her favor by her
rendered ordering the partition of the properties; ordering predecessor-in-interest and has since 30 September 1987,
defendants FidelaOcampo and FelicidadOcampo, to release been the absolute owner thereof; that since 1949 none of the
or otherwise cancel any and all encumbrances on TCT which plaintiffs ever questioned the absolute ownership and title of
they had caused to be annotated thereon, particularly, the defendant Belen Ocampo-Barritos predecessor-in-interest
mortgage in favor of the PNB; requiring FidelaOcampo and over the property making the decree of registration
FelicidadOcampo to refrain from further encumbering said incontrovertible;
properties or otherwise subjecting the same to any lien and
for that purpose, a writ of preliminary injunction to be issued The RTC declares the defendant spouses are the true
against them to enjoin the commission of such acts; ordering and lawful exclusive owners of the following properties.
defendants FidelaOcampo and FelicidadOcampo to submit an
accounting of the fruits and other produce they had received CAaffirmed with modification on the damages.
from said properties; further ordering FidelaOcampo and
FelicidadOcampo to indemnify plaintiffs; and, further granting According to the appellate court, other than the
plaintiffs such other remedies as may be just and equitable in Acknowledgment of Co-ownership7 executed by Respondent
the premises. FidelaOcampo, no documentary evidence was offered to
establish petitioners claim of co-ownership. The CA held that
On 17 December 1987, counsel for plaintiffs filed a this piece of documentary evidence could not prevail over the
Motion to Admit Supplemental Complaint dated 2 December array of testimonial and documentary evidence that had been
1987 which was granted by the Court as there was no adduced by respondents to prove their defenses. Communal
opposition to it. ownership of the property in question was supposedly not
proven, either, by the ancient photograph showing Spouses
The Supplemental Complaint alleges that defendants Chino Jose and Juana LlanderOcampo with their ten children
Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito are spouses; that in front of the disputed property; or by another picture
on 1987, the TCT in the name of defendant FidelaOcampo showing the name "OniangOcampo -- 1-15-61" engraved on
and covering the lot described as parcel (a) was cancelled the said house or building.
and, in lieu thereof, TCT No. 1364 was issued to defendant
Belen Ocampo-Barrito, married to defendant Vicente Barrito,
on the strength of an allege[d] Deed of Donation Inter Vivos
ostensibly executed by defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo in their
favor on 13 January 1984;
ISSUE: whether or not there was co-ownership of the (a) A
Plaintiffs pray that judgment be rendered (a) declaring
parcel of residential/ commercial land situated in the
the Deed of Donation Inter Vivos allegedly executed by Fidela
poblacion of Nabua, Camarines Sur, covered by TCT No. RT-
Ll. Ocampo in favor of Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente
4389(983) in the name of FidelaOcampo;
Barrito be declare[d] null and void, (b) ordering defendants
Belen Ocampo-Barrito and Vicente Barrito to reconvey so
much of the property subject thereof as pertain to the
plaintiffs, (c) directing defendants, jointly and severally, to
indemnify plaintiffs such amounts as this Honorable Court RULING: NO.
may consider fair and reasonable by way of actual, moral and
exemplary damages, inclusive of attorneys fees and related Petitioners chief evidence of co-ownership of the property in
expenses of litigation, and (d) granting plaintiffs such other question is simply the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership
remedies as may be just and equitable in the premises. executed by Fidela. Both the trial and the appellate courts
were correct in finding that this piece of documentary
As Special Defenses, defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito evidence could not prevail over the array of testimonial and
allege that the original defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo, her documentary evidence that were adduced by respondents.
predecessor-in-interest, since 1949 has been the absolute
owner in fee simple of the property by virtue of the issuance Petitioners failed to trace the successive transfers of
of the certificate of title in her name; that her predecessor-in- ownership of the questioned property that eventually led to
interest held the same certificate of title to the same parcel them. Allegedly, it was originally owned by their parents --
of land free of all encumbrances and adverse claims and was Spouses Ocampo -- whose deaths passed it on to the
in notorious, public, and actual possession of the property in children. Petitioners, however, presented absolutely no proof
concept of absolute owner from 1949 until 13 January 1984, of ownership of their predecessors-in-interest. In insisting
when said predecessor-in-interest validly conveyed the that it was so transferred and thus co-owned, the former rely
on the Acknowledgement of Co-ownership executed by was written and executed on 24 December 1985 when she
Fidela, their eldest sibling. was no longer the owner of the property as the year previous,
on 13 January 1984, she had already donated all her
On the other hand, Belen clearly traced the basis of her properties to defendant Belen Ocampo-Barrito, so that, in
alleged sole ownership of the property and presented effect, she had no more properties with which she can have
preponderant proof of her claim.First, she presented a Deed an interest to declare against.
of Absolute Sale of Residential Land,referring to the subject
property, executed between Adolfo Ocampo as seller and The engravings on the house ONIANG OCAMPO BLDG. -- 1-
Felix Ocampo as buyer. The theory of petitioners is 15-61 cannot serve as evidence that the property is of
completely demolished by this document, which they never common ownership. Neither can the petitioners contention
contested. According to them, the land in question was the that co-ownership is shown by the fact that some of the
conjugal property of their parents; and that upon the latters children of Spouses Ocampo stayed, lived, and even put up
deaths, the former inherited it in common. If indeed the land businesses on the property, be accepted. The appellate court
was the conjugal property of Spouses Ocampo, then correctly found that since the litigants in this case were blood
petitioners should have presented evidence to prove such relatives, fraternal affection could have been a good motive
ownership by their alleged predecessors-in-interest. that impelled either Belen or Fidela to allow petitioners to
use the property. Without any proof, however, co-ownership
Likewise, in this Deed of Absolute Sale, Adolfo Ocampo among the parties cannot be presumed.
declared his "exclusive ownership" of the property, "having
been acquired by purchase[;] and [having] been in [his]
continuous, public, peaceful, adverse and material possession
for more than 50 years together with [his] predecessors in 4) LILIA SANCHEZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, HON.
rights and interest, in [the] concept of owner without any VICTORINO S. ALVARO as Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 120,
claim of other persons." Caloocan City, and VIRGINIA TERIA, respondents.
Second, Respondent Belen proved that on February 10, 1953, [G.R. No. 152766. June 20, 2003]
this property had been sold to Fidela by Felix Ocampo for a
valuable consideration; and that Fidela had entered the FACTS:
property, actually occupied it, and exercised all powers of
dominion over it to the exclusion of petitioners.
Lilia Sanchez, petitioner, constructed a house on a 76-square
meter lot owned by her parents-in-law. The lot was
As proofs of ownership of the property by Fidela, Belen registered under TCT No. 263624 with the following co-
presented Transfer Certificate of Title No. RT-4389 owners: Eliseo Sanchez married to Celia Sanchez, Marilyn
(983),which named the former as owner in fee simple; and a Sanchez married to NicanorMontalban, Lilian Sanchez,
Declaration of Real Property, evidencing payment of real widow, Nenita Sanchez, single, Susana Sanchez married to
property taxes, also by Fidela as owner. Fernando Ramos, and Felipe Sanchez.On 20 February 1995,
the lot was registered under TCT No. 289216 in the name of
To prove further that Fidela had exercised dominion over the private respondent Virginia Teria by virtue of a Deed of
property, Belen also presented a Real Estate Absolute Sale supposed to have been executed on 23 June
Mortgage executed by the former as absolute owner. Fidela 1995]by all six (6) co-owners in her favor.Petitioner claimed
had executed it in favor of her sister ApoloniaOcampo, one of that she did not affix her signature on the document and
the original petitioners in this case, who is now represented subsequently refused to vacate the lot, thus prompting
by her heirs. Belen correctly argues that in agreeing to be a private respondent Virginia Teria to file an action for recovery
mortgagee, Apolonia admitted and recognized Fidela as the of possession of the aforesaid lot with the Metropolitan Trial
true owner of the land in question. Court (MeTC) of Caloocan City sometime in September 1995,
subsequently raffled to Branch 49 of that court.
Third, Belen then presented a Deed of Donation Inter
Vivosexecuted on January 13, 1984, between herself as On 12 February 1998, the MeTC-Br. 49 of Caloocan City
donee and Fidela as donor. This act shows the immediate ruled in favor of private respondent declaring that the sale
source of the formers claim of sole ownership of the was valid only to the extent of 5/6 of the lot and the other
property. 1/6 remaining as the property of petitioner, on account of her
signature in the Deed of Absolute Sale having been
On the claim of plaintiffs that defendant Fidela Ll. Ocampo established as a forgery.
herself made a written acknowledgement for her co-
Petitioner then elevated her appeal to the Regional Trial
ownership over all the properties disputed with plaintiffs in
this case, the same cannot be considered as a declaration Court of Caloocan City, subsequently assigned to Br. 120,
which ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda
against Fidelas interest since the alleged acknowledgement
of appeal. Counsel for petitioner did not comply with this
order, nor even inform her of the developments in her becomes a trustee for the benefit of his co-owners and he
case. Petitioner not having filed any pleading with the RTC of may not do any act prejudicial to the interest of his co-
Caloocan City, the trial court affirmed the 27 July 1998 owners.
decision of the MeTC.
Thus, the legal effect of an agreement to preserve the
On 4 November 1998, the MeTC issued an order for the properties in co-ownership is to create an express trust
issuance of a writ of execution in favor of private respondent among the heirs as co-owners of the properties. Co-
Virginia Teria, buyer of the property. On 4 November 1999 or ownership is a form of trust and every co-owner is a trustee
a year later, a Notice to Vacate was served by the sheriff for the others.
upon petitioner who however refused to heed the Notice.
Before the partition of a land or thing held in common,
On 28 April 1999 private respondent started no individual or co-owner can claim title to any definite
demolishing petitioners house without any special permit of portion thereof. All that the co-owner has is an ideal or
demolition from the court. abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire land or
thing.[17]
Due to the demolition of her house which continued
until 24 May 1999 petitioner was forced to inhabit the Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the owner of an
portion of the premises that used to serve as the houses undivided interest in the property the right to freely sell and
toilet and laundry area. dispose of it, i.e., his undivided interest. He may validly lease
his undivided interest to a third party independently of the
On 29 October 1999 petitioner filed her Petition for other co-owners.But he has no right to sell or alienate a
Relief from Judgment with the RTC on the ground that she
concrete, specific or determinate part of the thing owned in
was not bound by the inaction of her counsel who failed to
common because his right over the thing is represented by a
submit petitioners appeal memorandum. However the RTC
quota or ideal portion without any physical adjudication.
denied the Petition and the subsequent Motion for
Reconsideration. Although assigned an aliquot but abstract part of the
property, the metes and bounds of petitioners lot has not
On 14 June 2000 petitioner filed her Petition
been designated. As she was not a party to the Deed of
for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals alleging grave abuse Absolute Salevoluntarily entered into by the other co-owners,
of discretion on the part of the court a quo.
her right to 1/6 of the property must be respected. Partition
On 23 May 2001 the appellate court dismissed the needs to be effected to protect her right to her definite share
petition for lack of merit. On 18 June 2001 petitioner filed and determine the boundaries of her property. Such partition
a Motion for Reconsideration but the Court of Appeals denied must be done without prejudice to the rights of private
the motion in its Resolution of 8 January 2002. respondent Virginia Teria as buyer of the 5/6 portion of the
lot under dispute.
5) (NOT YET SURE IF THIS IS THE CORRECT CASE)
ISSUE: Whether or not
FIRST DIVISION
RULING:
This case overlooks a basic yet significant principle of civil [G.R. No. 120122. November 6, 1997]
law: co-ownership. Throughout the proceedings from the
MeTC to the Court of Appeals, the notion of co-ownershipwas
not sufficiently dealt with. We attempt to address this
controversy in the interest of substantial GLORIA R. CRUZ, petitioner, vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ROMY
justice. Certiorari should therefore be granted to cure this V. SUZARA and MANUEL R.
grave abuse of discretion. VIZCONDE, respondents.
Judgment of the MTCC-ruled in favor of Quijano since Even if an heir's right in the estate of the decedent has not
disputed property, had not yet been partitioned, rendering yet been fully settled and partitioned and is thus merely
Eliseo a mere co-owner of the undivided estate who had no inchoate, Article 49325cralawred of the Civil Code gives the
right to dispose of a definite portion thereof; that as a co- heir the right to exercise acts of ownership. Accordingly,
owner, Eliseo effectively conveyed to the respondent only the when Eliseo sold the disputed property to the respondent in
portion that would ultimately be allotted to him once the 1990 and 1991, he was only a co-owner along with his
property would be subdivided. siblings, and could sell only that portion that would be
allotted to him upon the termination of the co-ownership.
Decision of the RTC- reversed the judgment of the MTCC. In The sale did not vest ownership of the disputed property in
the case at bar, by virtue of the deed of absolute sale the respondent but transferred only the seller's pro indiviso
executed by EliseoQuijano, one of the co-heirs of Fe Quijano, share to him, consequently making him, as the buyer, a co-
in 1990 and 1991, the defendant Atty. Amante took owner of the disputed property until it is partitioned.26
possession of the portion in question and built his residential
house thereat. As Eliseo's successor-in-interest or assignee, the respondent
was vested with the right under Article 497 of the Civil Code
Undaunted, the petitioner moved for reconsideration, but to take part in the partition of the estate and to challenge the
the RTC denied her motion on November 13, 1996. partition undertaken without his consent.27 Article 497
states:
Decision of the CA- On May 26, 2004, the CA promulgated its
decision,15 affirming the decision of the RTC, and dismissing Article 497. The creditors or assignees of the co-owners may
the case for ejectment, but on the ground that the take part in the division of the thing owned in common and
respondent was either a co-owner or an assignee holding the object to its being effected without their concurrence. But
right of possession over the disputed property. 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 In contrast, the respondent consistently stood firm on his
prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its assertion that his possession of the disputed property was in
validity. the concept of an owner, not by the mere tolerance of Eliseo,
and actually presented the deeds of sale transferring
The respondent could not deny that at the time of the sale he ownership of the property to him.
knew that the property he was buying was not exclusively
owned by Eliseo. He knew, too, that the co-heirs had entered WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS the decision promulgated
into an oral agreement of partition vis-a-vis the estate, such on May 26, 2004 subject to the MODIFICATION that the
knowledge being explicitly stated in his answer to the unlawful detainer action is dismissed for being an improper
complaint, to wit: remedy; and ORDERS the petitioner to pay the costs of suit.
Indisputably, DE GUIA has been in exclusive possession of the WHEREFORE, the Decision dated 22 August 1994 and
entire FISHPOND since July 1974. Initially, DE GUIA disputed Resolution dated 27 June 1995 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
ABEJOs claim of ownership over the undivided portion of the G.R. CV No. 39875 is AFFIRMED with respect to that portion
FISHPOND. Subsequently, he implicitly recognized ABEJOs ordering Manuel T. De Guia to pay Jose B. Abejo
undivided share by offering to settle the case for P300,000 compensatory damages of P212,500 and attorneys fees of
and to vacate the property. During the trial proper, neither P20,000, and MODIFIED as follows:
DE GUIA nor ABEJO asserted or manifested a claim of 1. The co-ownership between Manuel T. De Guia
absolute and exclusive ownership over the entire FISHPOND. and Jose B. Abejo over the entire FISHPOND
Before this Court, DE GUIA limits the issues to the propriety covered by TCT No. 6358 of the Bulacan
of bringing an action for recovery of possession and the Register of Deeds is recognized without
recovery of compensatory damages. prejudice to the outcome of CAG.R. CV No.
38031 pending before the Court of Appeals and
other cases involving the same property;
2. Manuel T. De Guia and Jose B. Abejo shall
equally enjoy possession and use of the entire
FISHPOND prior to partition;
3. The compensatory damages of P25,000 per
annum representing rent from 27 November
1983 until May 1992 shall earn interest at 6%
per annum from 27 November 1983 until
finality of this decision, and thereafter at 12%
per annum until full payment;
4. Manuel T. de Guia shall pay Jose B. Abejo a
yearly rent of P25,000 from June 1992 until
finality of this decision, with interest at 6% per
annum during the same period, and thereafter
at 12% interest per annum until full payment;
5. After finality of this decision and for as long as
Manuel T. de Guia exclusively possesses the
entire FISHPOND, he shall pay Jose B. Abejo a
yearly rental of P25,000 for the latters
undivided share in the FISHPOND, unless Jose
B. Abejo secures from the proper court an
order fixing a different rental rate in view of
possible changed circumstances.
SO ORDERED.
Article 488 on November 20, 1946, Angela filed a complaint in
the Court of First Instance of Manila asking the court
1) Tusaon v Tuason. Jr. and Gregorio Araneta 88 P 428 to order the partition of the property in question
G.R. No.L-3404 April 2, 1951ANGELA I. and that she be given 1/3 of the same including
TUASON, plaintiff-appellant, vs. rents collected during the time that the same
ANTONIO TUASON, JR., and GREGORIO ARANETA, including rents collected during the time that
INC., defendants-appellees. Araneta Inc., administered said property.
2) Vda de Castro v Atienza 53 S 264 Felisa Cruz Vda. de Castro refused to sign Exhibit A.
G.R. No. L-25014 October 17, 1973 Defendant did not pay the P2,500.00 which under
DOLORES LAHORA VDA. DE CASTRO, ARSENIO DE the above-quoted paragraph of Exhibit A, he should
CASTRO, JR., WILFREDO DE CASTRO, IRINEO DE have paid on December 30, 1956. Demand for
CASTRO and VIRGINIA DE CASTRO ALEJANDRO, (in payment was made by plaintiff's counsel on January
substitution for the deceased defendant-appellant 7, 1957 but to no avail, hence the present action.
ARSENIO DE CASTRO, SR.)., petitioners,
vs.GREGORIO ATIENZA, respondent. Issue:
2) De Guia v CA 413 S 114 FIRST DIVISION[G.R. No. The CA reinstated the decision of the MTC holding
120864. October 8, 2003] that Arnelito and the heirs of Graciana are co-heirs
MANUEL T. DE GUIA, petitioner, vs. COURT OF thus he cannot eject them from the property via
APPEALS (Former Sixth Division) and JOSE B. ABEJO, unlawful detainer. Thus the case at bar.
represented by his Attorney-in-Fact,
HermenegildaAbejo-Rivera, respondents. ISSUE:
Whether or not Arnelito can validly maintain the
A co-owner by virtue of Art. 487 is allowed to bring ejectment suit
an action without necessity of including all the co-
owners as plaintiffs for it is presumed to be for the HELD:
benefit of all BUT if the action of the plaintiff alone, NO. The theory of succession invoked by Arnelito
the action should be dismissed. would prove that he is not the sole heir of
Dominador. Since he was survived was his wife,
FACTS: upon his death, Arnelito and Graciana became co-
A house and lot (lot 7226) was registered in the owners of the lot. Upon her death, her share passed
name of DominadorAdlawan, the father of on to her relatives by consanguinity thus making
(petitioner) ArnelitoAdlawan. He is the them co-owners as well.
acknowledged illegitimate child of Dominador who is
claiming that he is the sole heir. He then adjudicated Petitioner contends that Art. 487 allows him to file
to himself the said house and lot to himself and out the instant petition. (Art. 487. Any one of the co-
of generosity allowed the siblings of his father to owners may bring an action in ejectment.) It is true
occupy the property provided that they vacate when that a co-owner may bring such an action w/o
asked. Time came when he demanded that they necessity of joining all the co-owners as plaintiffs
vacate and when they refused he filed an ejectment because it is presumed to be instituted for the
suit against them. benefit of all BUT if the action is for the benefit of
the plaintiff alone, the action should be dismissed.
Since petitioner brought the suit in his name and for
his benefit alone and his repudiation of the
ownership of the other heirs, the instant petition
should be dismissed.
ARTICLE 501 Is the sale of the designated undivided and co-
owned portion valid?
1) PEDRO OLIVERAS vs. CANDIDO LOPEZ
G.R. No. L-29727 December 14, 1988 RULING
168 SCRA 431
In long line of decisions, the court has held that the
portion of a land or hold in common, no individual or
Facts:
co-owner could held title to any definite portion
Lorenzo Lopez owned Lot 4685. When Lorenzo Lopez thereof. All the co-owners has abstract or
died he leave the said property to his wife Tomasa proportional share of the entire land or thing.
Ramos and his 6 children. From that time on, the
However, the juridical condition of co-ownership is
heirs did not initiate any move to partition the
not absolute. Under article 494 and 1083 of the NCC,
property.
co-ownership of an estate should not exceed the
20 years late on February 11, 1953, Tomasa Ramos period of twenty (20) years. And, under the former
and her eldest son Candido Lopez, executed a deed article, any agreement to keep a thing or property
of absolute sale of the Eastern undivided 4,257 undivided should be for a ten-year period only.
square meters portion of their rights and interest Where the parties stipulate a definite period of in
over lot 4685 in favour of the spouses Melecio division which exceeds the maximum allowed by
Olivares and Anecita Minor for P1,000 as law, said stipulation shall be void only as to the
consideration. period beyond such maximum.
On the same day, they executed another deed of In the instant case, the heirs of Lorenzo Lopez
sale involving another 4,257 square meters of the maintained the co-ownership for more than twenty
undivided lot 4685 infavor of the spouses Pedro years. We hold that when Candido and his mother
Oliveras and Teodora Gaspar. sold definite portions of Lot 4685, they validly
exercised dominion over them because, by
Since the execution of the deed of sale the vendees operation of law, the co-ownership had ceased. The
had paying the real property taxes of their respective filing of the complaint for partition by the Oliverases
purchased properties to which they planted palay who, as vendees, are legally considered as
and peanut. subrogated to the rights of Candido over portions of
Lot 4685 in their possession, 16 merely served to put
20 years later, on November 21, 1966, the Olivares a stamp of formality on Candido's otherwise
(vendees) reminded the heirs of Lorenzo lopez accomplished act of terminating the co-ownership.
(vendors) of their demand to partition the land so
they could acquire their respective titles thereof. 2) CONCEPCION ROQUE vs IAC
The lopezes did not reply, hence the Olivares filed a G.R. No. 75886 August 30, 1988
complaint for partition and damages. \ 165 SCRA 118
LOWER COURT RULING: Declared the validity of the On September 28, 1959, co-owners Illuminada,
Deed of Sale and ordered the segregation of the sold Gregorio, Miguel, Bernardino, Bienvenido,
portions. Numeriano and Rufina, all surnamed Avendao,
transferred their collective and undivided
ISSUE: threefourths (3/4) share in Lot No. 1549 to
respondent Ernesto Roque and Victor Roque,
thereby vesting in the latter full and complete 3) ANTIPOLO INING vs. LEONARDO VEGA
ownership of the property.
The court reinstated the ruling of the CFI Malolos. 1. Is there a repudiation of co-ownership when
Lucimo sr. acquired the property by sale from
Under article 494 of the NCC, each co-owner may Juan Enriquez?
demand at any time the partition of the thing owned
2. Is Leonardo barred by laches?
in common, in so far as his share is concerned.
Petitioner Conception Roque the co-owner seeking
RULING:
partion has been and is presently in open and
continous possession of the portion of the
property owned in common. Prior to filing of the 1. petitioners insistence on Lucimo Sr.s 1943 purchase
parties involved had asserted or manifested a claim of the property to reinforce their claim over the
of absolute and exclusive ownership of the whole lot property must be ignored. Since no transfer from
1549, thus co-ownership of the property had Leon to Lucimo Sr. took place, the subject property
continued to be recognized by all the owner. clearly remained part of Leons estate upon his
passing in 1962.
ISSUE
RULING: