G.R. No.
187987 November 26, 2014 The RTC Ruling
VICENTE TORRES, JR., CARLOS VELEZ, AND THE HEIRS OF MARIANO The RTC dismissed the complaint for forcible entry. But also annulled the
VELEZ, NAMELY: ANITA CHIONG VELEZ, ROBERT OSCAR CHIONG site assignment by Jesus Velez in the Deed of Sale to Lorenzo Lapinid
VELEZ, SARAH JEAN CHIONG VELEZ AND TED CHIONG VELEZ, Petitioners, because of the lack of exact location of which still has to be determined
vs. either by agreement of the co-owners or by the Court in proper proceedings.
LORENZO LAPINID AND JESUS VELEZ, Respondents.
Aggrieved, petitioners filed their partial motion for reconsideration which was
denied. Thereafter, they filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals.
Facts:
Vicente Torres, et al. (petitioners) including Jesus Velez (respondent) are co- The CA Ruling
owners of several parcels of lands (Lot No. 4389) in Carcar, Cebu. Jesus filed The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It validated the
an action for partition of the parcels of land against the petitioners and other
sale and ruled that the compromise agreement did not affect the validity of
co-owners before the RTC Cebu City. A judgment was rendered based on a
the sale previously executed by Jesus and Lapinid. It likewise dismissed the
compromise agreement signed by the parties wherein they agreed that
claim for rental payments, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of the
Jesus, Mariano and Vicente were jointly authorized to sell the said petitioners.
properties and receive the proceeds thereof and distribute them to all the
co-owners. The agreement was later amended to exclude Jesus as an
authorized seller. The petitioners discovered that Lapinid was already Issue:
occupying a portion of the 3000 square meters of Lot No. 4389 by
virtue of a deed of sale executed by Jesus in favor of Lapinid. A forcible Whether or not a co-owner (Jesus Velez) can validly sell a portion of land he co-
entry case was filed against Lapinid. owns in favor of another favor.
Whether or not Lapinid must pay rental payments to the other co-owners.
The petitioners prayed that the deed of sale be declared null and void
arguing that the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property without
notice to the other co-owners is without force and effect and they Lapinid
pay a rental fee of ₱1,000.00 per month from January 2004 or from the Ruling:
time of deprivation of property.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jesus Velez and Lorenzo Lapinid and denied
the petition on the grounds that:
Jesus asserted that, because of the previous arraignments that the land is
adjudication to the co-owners the group of Velez and Jesus and that several On the First Issue
co-owners already sold their land to Jesus, he is a majority co-owner and
that it was unnecessary to give notice of the sale as the lot was already A co-owner has an absolute ownership of his undivided and pro indiviso
adjudicated in his favor. Lapinid admitted that he entered into a deed of sale share in the co-owned property. He has the right to alienate, assign and
with Jesus covering the 3000 sq. meters land. Lapinid avers that he believed mortgage it, even to the extent of substituting a third person in its enjoyment
that Jesus was the majority owner of the land when the latter showed provided that no personal rightswill be affected. This is evident from the
several titles in support of his claim. He further denied that he acquired a provision of the Art. 493 of the Civil Code:
specific and definite portion of the questioned property, citing as evidence the
deed of sale which does not mention any boundaries or specific portion. He Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of
explained that Jesus permitted him to occupy a portion not exceeding 3000 his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and
square meters conditioned on the result of the partition of the co-owners. he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when is to have the covered properties sold, is valid and effectual provided as it
personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or does not affect the proportionate share of the non-consenting party.
the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to Accordingly, when the compromise agreement was executed without
the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon Lapinid’s consent, said agreement could not have affected his ideal and
the termination of the co-ownership. undivided share. Petitioners cannot sell Lapinid’s share absent his consent.
Nemo dat quod non habet – "no one can give what he does not have."
A co-owner is an owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises the
right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is The Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that even if a co-owner sells
truly abstract. Hence, his co-owners have no right to enjoin a co-owner who the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not
intends to alienate or substitute his abstract portion or substitute a third those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. This is because
person in its enjoyment. the sale or other disposition of a co-owner affects only his undivided share
and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the
In this case, Jesus can validly alienate his co-owned property in favor of partition of the thing owned in common.
Lapinid, free from any opposition from the co-owners. Lapinid, as a
transferee, validly obtained the same rights of Jesus from the date of the On the Second Issue:
execution of a valid sale. Absent any proof that the sale was not perfected,
the validity of sale subsists. In essence, Lapinid steps into the shoes of Jesus As previously discussed, Lapinid, from the execution of sale, became a co-
as co-owner of an ideal and proportionate share in the property held in owner vested with rights to enjoy the property held in common.
common. Thus, from the perfection of contract, Lapinid eventually became a
co-owner of the property. The Court cited, in support of its ruling, Art. 486 and 493 of the Civil
Code which provide that:
Even assuming that the petitioners are correct in their allegation that the
disposition in favor of Lapinid before partition was a concrete or definite Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in
portion, the validity of sale still prevails. The Supreme Court had repeatedly common, provided he does so in accordance with the purpose
held that no individual can claim title to a definite or concrete portion before for which it is intended and in such a way as not to injure the
partition of co-owned property. Each co-owner only possesses a right to sell interest of the co-ownership or prevent the other co-owners
or alienate his ideal share after partition. However, in case he disposes his from using it according to their rights. The purpose of the co-
share before partition, such disposition does not make the sale or ownership may be changed by agreement, express or implied.
alienation null and void. What will be affected on the sale is only his
proportionate share, subject to the results of the partition. The co-owners Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his
who did not give their consent to the sale stand to be unaffected by the part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he
alienation. The validity of sale being settled, it follows that the subsequent may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and even
compromise agreement between the other co-owners did not affect the rights substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
of Lapinid as a co-owner. personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the
It was ruled that Jesus Velez, Mariano Velez and Vicente Torres, Jr. are portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
currently authorized to sell said properties, receive the proceeds thereof and termination of the co-ownership.
distribute them to the parties. Be that as it may, the compromise agreement
failed to defeat the already accrued right of ownership of Lapinid over the Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the
share sold by Jesus. As early as 9 November 1997, Lapinid already became whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation
a co-owner of the property and thus, vested with all the rights enjoyed by the than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners, the reason being
other co-owners. The judgment based on the compromise agreement, which that until a division is made, the respective share of each cannot be
determined and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants
joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and
enjoyment of the same.
From the foregoing, it is absurd to rule that Lapinid, who is already a co-
owner, be ordered to pay rental payments to his other co-owners. Lapinid’s
right of enjoyment over the property owned in common must be respected
despite opposition and may notbe limited as long he uses the property to the
purpose for which it isintended and he does not injure the interest of the co-
ownership.
