008 Arambulo v.

Nolasco (Daguman) of the co–owner, clearly establishing that each co–owner shall have full ownership
March 26, 2014 | Perez, J. | Co-Ownership of his part and of its fruits and benefits.

PETITIONER: RAUL V. ARAMBULO AND TERESITA A. DELA CRUZ Petitioners who project themselves as prejudiced co–owners may bring a suit for
RESPONDENTS: GENARO NOLASCO AND JEREMY SPENCER partition, which is one of the modes of extinguishing co–ownership.
NOLASCO
SUMMARY:
Iradia Arambulo-Nolasco is part co-owner of 2 parcels of land in Tondo. When
she passed away, she was succeeded by her husband Genaro Nolasco and their
children. The petitioners in this case ( who are the other Arambulo siblings) filed
for a petition for relief under art 491 contending that all the co-owners except for
the successors of Iradia have authorized to sell their respective shares, that the sale
of subject properties constitutes an alteration ; and that under Article 491 of the
Civil Code, if one or more co–owners shall withhold their consent to the
alterations in the thing owned in common, the courts may afford adequate relief.
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the Nolascos to give their
consent to the sale. Going along with petitioners’ reliance on Article 491 of the FACTS:
Civil Code, the trial court found that respondents’ withholding of their consent to 1. Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, along with their
the sale of their shares is prejudicial to the common interest of the co–owners. The mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo, and siblings Primo V. Arambulo, Ma.
Court of Appeals held that the respondents had the full ownership of their Lorenza A. Lopez, Ana Maria V. Arambulo, Maximiano V. Arambulo, Julio
undivided interest in the subject properties, thus, they cannot be compelled to sell V. Arambulo and Iraida Arambulo Nolasco (Iraida) are co–owners of two (2)
their undivided shares in the properties. It referred to the provisions of Article 493 parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila, with an aggregate size of 233 square
of the Civil Code. However, the Court of Appeals, implying applicability of meters.
Article 491 also observed that petitioners failed to show how respondents’ 2. When Iraida passed away, she was succeeded by her husband, respondent
withholding of their consent would prejudice the common interest over the subject Genaro Nolasco and their children, Iris Abegail Nolasco, Ingrid Aileen
properties. Whether respondents, as co–owners, can be compelled by the court to Arambulo and respondent Jeremy Spencer Nolasco.
give their consent to the sale of their shares in the co–owned properties? NO. 3. On 8 January 1999, petitioners filed a petition for relief under Article 491 of
Article 493 dictates that each one of the parties herein as co–owners with full the Civil Code with the RTC of Manila, alleging that all of the co–owners,
ownership of their parts can sell their fully owned part. The sale by the petitioners except for respondents, have authorized petitioners to sell their respective
of their parts shall not affect the full ownership by the respondents of the part that shares to the subject properties; that only respondents are withholding their
belongs to them. Their part which petitioners will sell shall be that which may be consent to the sale of their shares; that in case the sale pushes through, their
apportioned to them in the division upon the termination of the co–ownership. mother and siblings will get their respective 1/9 share of the proceeds of the
With the full ownership of the respondents remaining unaffected by petitioners’ sale, while respondents will get ¼ share each of the 1/9 share of Iraida; that
sale of their parts, the nature of the property, as co–owned, likewise stays. In lieu the sale of subject properties constitutes alteration; and that under Article 491
of the petitioners, their vendees shall be co–owners with the respondents. of the Civil Code, if one or more co–owners shall withhold their consent to
the alterations in the thing owned in common, the courts may afford adequate
DOCTRINE relief.
Article 493 shows the essential integrity of the right of each co–owner in the 4. Respondents averred that they were not aware of the intention of petitioners
mental portion which belongs to him in the ownership or community. To be a co– to sell the properties they co–owned because they were not called to
owner of a property does not mean that one is deprived of every recognition of the participate in any negotiations regarding the disposition of the property.
disposal of the thing, of the free use of his right within the circumstantial 5. The trial court ruled in favor of petitioners and ordered respondents to give
conditions of such judicial status, nor is it necessary, for the use and enjoyment, their consent to the sale
or the right of free disposal, that the previous consent of all the interested parties 6. Going along with petitioners’ reliance on Article 491 of the Civil Code, the
be obtained trial court found that respondents’ withholding of their consent to the sale of
There is co–ownership whenever, as in this case, the ownership of an undivided their shares is prejudicial to the common interest of the co–owners.
thing, belongs to different persons. Article 493 of the Code defines the ownership 7. Respondent’s filed and appeal before the CA questioning the Trial Court’s
 Ruling mortgage, with respect to the co–owners, shall be limited to the portion
8. CA granted the appeal and reversed the trial court’s decision. The Court of which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co–
Appeals held that the respondents had the full ownership of their undivided ownership.
interest in the subject properties, thus, they cannot be compelled to sell their
undivided shares in the properties. It referred to the provisions of Article 493 2. Upon the other hand, Article 491 states:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
of the Civil Code. However, the Court of Appeals, implying applicability of
Article 491 also observed that petitioners failed to show how respondents’
withholding of their consent would prejudice the common interest over the Art. 491. None of the co–owners shall, without the consent of the others, make
subject properties. alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all would result
9. Hence, the instant petition seeking the reversal of the appellate court’s therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by one or more of the co–
decision and praying for the affirmance of the trial court’s decision that owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts may afford adequate
ordered respondents to give their consent to the sale of the subject properties. relief.
Petitioners emphasize that under Article 491 of the Civil Code, they may ask
the court to afford them adequate relief should respondents refuse to sell their 3. As intimated above, the erroneous application of Article 491 is, in this case,
respective shares to the co–owned properties. They refute the appellate an innate infirmity. The very initiatory pleading below was
court’s finding that they failed to show how the withholding of consent by captioned Petition For Relief Under Article 491 of the New Civil Code.
respondents becomes prejudicial to their common interest. Citing the Petitioners, likewise petitioners before the RTC, filed the case on the
testimony of petitioner Teresita A. Dela Cruz, they assert that one of the two submission that Article 491 covers the petition and grants the relief prayed
subject properties has an area of 122 square meters and if they decide to for, which is to compel the respondent co–owners to agree to the sale of the
partition, instead of selling the same, their share would be reduced to a measly co–owned property. The trial court took up all that petitioners tendered, and
30–square meter lot each. The other property was testified to as measuring it favored the pleading with the finding that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
only 111 square meters. Petitioners reiterate that all the other co–owners are
willing to sell the property and give respondents their share of the proceeds
of the sale. 4. x x x To this court, the act of respondents of withholding consent to
the sale of the properties is not only prejudicial to the common
ISSUE/s: Whether respondents, as co–owners, can be compelled by the court to give interest of the co–owners but is also considered as an alteration
their consent to the sale of their shares in the co–owned properties? NO. Article 493 within the purview of Article 491 of the New Civil Code. x x x.
dictates that each one of the parties herein as co–owners with full ownership of their Hence, it is deemed just and proper to afford adequate relief to
parts can sell their fully owned part. The sale by the petitioners of their parts shall not herein petitioners under Article 491 of the New Civil Code
affect the full ownership by the respondents of the part that belongs to them. Their part
5. That a sale constitutes an alteration as mentioned in Article 491 is an
which petitioners will sell shall be that which may be apportioned to them in the established jurisprudence. It is settled that alterations include any act of strict
division upon the termination of the co–ownership. With the full ownership of the dominion or ownership and any encumbrance or disposition has been held
respondents remaining unaffected by petitioners’ sale of their parts, the nature of the
implicitly to be an act of alteration. Alienation of the thing by sale of the
property, as co–owned, likewise stays. In lieu of the petitioners, their vendees shall be
property is an act of strict dominion.
co–owners with the respondents
6. However, the ruling that alienation is alteration does not mean that a
sale of commonly owned real property is covered by the second
RULING: Petition is denied.
paragraph of Article 491, such that if a co–owner withholds consent to
the sale, the courts, upon a showing of a clear prejudice to the common
RATIO:
interest, may, as adequate relief, order the grant of the withheld consent.
1. The Court of Appeals correctly applied the provision of Article 493 of the
Such is the conclusion drawn by the trial court, and hinted at, if not
Civil Code, which states:chanRoblesvirtualLawl\
relied upon, by the appellate court.
7. There is co–ownership whenever, as in this case, the ownership of an
Art. 493. Each co–owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the undivided thing, belongs to different persons. Article 493 of the Code defines
fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign
the ownership of the co–owner, clearly establishing that each co–owner shall
or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except
have full ownership of his part and of its fruits and benefits.
when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or the
8. Pertinent to this case, Article 493 dictates that each one of the parties herein
 as co–owners with full ownership of their parts can sell their fully owned co–owner of a property does not mean that one is deprived of every
part. The sale by the petitioners of their parts shall not affect the full recognition of the disposal of the thing, of the free use of his right within the
ownership by the respondents of the part that belongs to them. Their part circumstantial conditions of such judicial status, nor is it necessary, for the
which petitioners will sell shall be that which may be apportioned to them in use and enjoyment, or the right of free disposal, that the previous consent of
the division upon the termination of the co–ownership. With the full all the interested parties be obtained
ownership of the respondents remaining unaffected by petitioners’ sale of 12. Absolute right of each co–owner with respect to his part or share. – With
their parts, the nature of the property, as co–owned, likewise stays. In lieu of respect to the latter, each co–owner is the same as an individual owner. He is
the petitioners, their vendees shall be co–owners with the respondents. a singular owner, with all the rights inherent in such condition. The share of
the co–owner, that is, the part which ideally belongs to him in the common
9. Our reading of Article 493 as applied to the facts of this case is a reiteration thing or right and is represented by a certain quantity, is his and he may
of what was pronounced in Bailon–Casilao v. Court of Appeals. The rights dispose of the same as he pleases, because it does not affect the right of the
of a co–owner of a certain property are clearly specified in Article 493 of others. Such quantity is equivalent to a credit against the common thing or
the Civil Code. Thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary right and is the private property of each creditor (co–owner). The various
shares ideally signify as many units of thing or right, pertaining individually
to the different owners; in other words, a unit for each owner
10. Art. 493. Each co–owner shall have the full ownership of his 13. The ultimate authorities in civil law, recognized as such by the Court, agree
part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may that co–owners such as respondents have over their part, the right of full and
therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it[,] and even substitute absolute ownership. Such right is the same as that of individual owners which
another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are is not diminished by the fact that the entire property is co–owned with others.
involved. But the effect of the alienation or [the] mortgage, with That part which ideally belongs to them, or their mental portion, may be
respect to the co–owners, shall be limited to the portion which may disposed of as they please, independent of the decision of their co–owners.
be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co– So we rule in this case. The respondents cannot be ordered to sell their portion
ownership. of the co–owned properties. In the language of Rodriguez v. Court of First
Instance of Rizal, “each party is the sole judge of what is good for him.”
As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co–owner sells 14. Indeed, the respected commentaries suggest the conclusion that, insofar as
the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but the sale of co–owned properties is concerned, there is no common interest
not those of the other co–owners who did not consent to the sale. that may be prejudiced should one or more of the co–owners refuse to sell the
This is because under the aforementioned codal provision, the sale co–owned property, which is exactly the factual situation in this case. When
or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the respondents disagreed to the sale, they merely asserted their individual
transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the ownership rights. Without unanimity, there is no common interest.
partition of the thing owned in common Consequently, by virtue of 15. Petitioners who project themselves as prejudiced co–owners may bring a
the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon which are valid suit for partition, which is one of the modes of extinguishing co–ownership.
with respect to their proportionate shares, and the subsequent Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co–owner shall be obliged
transfers which culminated in the sale to private respondent to remain in the co–ownership, and that each co–owner may demand at
Celestino Afable, the said Afable thereby became a co–owner of the any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is
disputed parcel of land as correctly held by the lower court since the concerned. Corollary to this rule, Article 498 of the Civil Code states that
sales produced the effect of substituting the buyers in the enjoyment whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and the co–owners cannot
thereof. agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it
shall be sold and its proceeds accordingly distributed. This is resorted to
From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co–owner is (a) when the right to partition the property is invoked by any of the co–
entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by owners but because of the nature of the property, it cannot be subdivided
one co–owner without the consent of the other co–owners is not null or its subdivision would prejudice the interests of the co–owners, and (b)
and void. However, only the rights of the co–owner–seller are the co–owners are not in agreement as to who among them shall be
transferred, thereby making the buyer a co–owner of the property allotted or assigned the entire property upon proper reimbursement of
the co–owners. This is the result obviously aimed at by petitioners at the
11. Article 493 shows the essential integrity of the right of each co–owner in the
outset. As already shown, this cannot be done while the co–ownership exists.
mental portion which belongs to him in the ownership or community.To be a