The Supreme Court held that the action for consolidation of ownership filed by private respondent Rebollos should not be granted. Margarita Yturralde, who previously owned the land with her deceased husband, could only sell her share in the property through a deed of sale, not the entire land, as it was still registered under the names of Margarita and her husband. Additionally, three of the children who were co-owners of the land were not properly summoned, making them indispensable parties whose absence meant the court had no jurisdiction to issue orders related to the case. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for consolidation.
The Supreme Court held that the action for consolidation of ownership filed by private respondent Rebollos should not be granted. Margarita Yturralde, who previously owned the land with her deceased husband, could only sell her share in the property through a deed of sale, not the entire land, as it was still registered under the names of Margarita and her husband. Additionally, three of the children who were co-owners of the land were not properly summoned, making them indispensable parties whose absence meant the court had no jurisdiction to issue orders related to the case. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for consolidation.
The Supreme Court held that the action for consolidation of ownership filed by private respondent Rebollos should not be granted. Margarita Yturralde, who previously owned the land with her deceased husband, could only sell her share in the property through a deed of sale, not the entire land, as it was still registered under the names of Margarita and her husband. Additionally, three of the children who were co-owners of the land were not properly summoned, making them indispensable parties whose absence meant the court had no jurisdiction to issue orders related to the case. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for consolidation.
The Supreme Court held that the action for consolidation of ownership filed by private respondent Rebollos should not be granted. Margarita Yturralde, who previously owned the land with her deceased husband, could only sell her share in the property through a deed of sale, not the entire land, as it was still registered under the names of Margarita and her husband. Additionally, three of the children who were co-owners of the land were not properly summoned, making them indispensable parties whose absence meant the court had no jurisdiction to issue orders related to the case. Therefore, the Court denied the petition for consolidation.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
[57] YTURRALDE V CA pacto de retro sale executed by Margarita expressly stipulates that she only
G.R. No. L-31586 | February 28, 1972 | Makasiar, J. sold all her rights, interests and participation in the lot covered by O.C.T. No. 2356. Margarita could not, for she had no right to, sell the entire lot, which is PROVISIONS: registered under O.C.T. No. 2356 "in the name of Francisco Yturralde married ● ART. 1463, NCC. The sole owner of a thing may sell an undivided to Margarita de los Reyes." Said lot is acknowledged by herein petitioners as interest therein. the conjugal property of Francisco and Margarita. ● ART. 1464, NCC. In the case of fungible goods, there may be a sale of an undivided share of a specific mass, though the seller purports to DOCTRINE: The petition for consolidation should not be granted. Margarita sell and the buyer to buy a definite number, weight or measure of the could not sell the entire lot because she had no right to do so. What she sold goods in the mass, and though the number, weight or measure of the were only her “rights, interests, and participation” in the lot. The lot was goods in the mass, and though the number, weight or measure of the conjugal property of Yturalde and Margarita, so what she disposed of under the goods in the mass is undetermined. By such a sale the buyer becomes pacto de retro sale was only her conjugal share + her successional right as owner in common of such a share of the mass as the number, weight Yturalde’s heir. or measure bought bears to the number, weight or measure of the mass. If the mass contains less than the number, weight or measure FACTS: bought, the buyer becomes the owner of the whole mass and the ● Francisco Yturralde and wife Margarita owned a parcel of seller is bound to make good the deficiency from goods of the same agricultural land located in Guilinan, Zamboanga del Sur containing kind and quality, unless a contrary intent appears. (n) an area of 14.1079 hectares. ● ART. 493, NCC. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his ● Francisco died intestate survived by his wife and 9 children. part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may ● Margarita contracted a second marriage with Francisco’s brother, therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another Damaso. person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved. But ○ Damaso and Margarita executed a deed of sale with a right the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co- of repurchase in favor of Isabelo Rebollos for P1,715. owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in ● The spouses failed to exercise right of repurchase within the 3-year the division upon the termination of the co- ownership. (399) period agreed upon. ● Margarita died SUMMARY: Francisco and Margarita Yturralde owned a parcel of land in ● Rebollos filed a petition for consolidation of ownership naming as Zamboanga del Sur. After Francisco died intestate, Margarita contracted a respondents the children (of Margarita) and Damaso second marriage with Damaso, Francisco’s brother. The couple executed a ● Summons were served on all respondents but 3 of the children – deed of sale with right to repurchase in favor of Isabelo Rebollos (private Josefina, Zosima and Ramon respondent). The spouses failed to buy back the property within the agreed ● The respondents were declared in default and Rebollos filed a period. For this reason, Rebollos filed a petition for consolidation of ownership. motion to order Montano (one of the children) to deliver and The three children herein were sent summons and were declared in default. surrender the owner’s duplicate of the OCT Rebollos filed a motion to order one of the children to deliver and surrender the ● Montano was arrested for failure to comply but this was lifted owner’s duplicate of the OCT (Original Cert of Title). A writ of execution was ● A writ of execution was issued and subsequently, Respondent issued and subsequently, Respondent Judge ordered the demolition of all Judge ordered the demolition of all buildings not belonging to buildings not belonging to Rebollos found in the premises. The issue here is Rebollos found in the premises WON the action for consolidation should be granted. The SC held NO. The ● Petitioners instituted present proceedings with the Court of Appeals and a writ of preliminary injunction was issued ● However before judgement with the CA, Rebollos issued a new TCT in favour of vendee Pilar Reyes ● CA concluded that the thing sought to be restrained has already been done and the title cannot be collaterally attacked. ● Thus, this petition.
ISSUE w/ HOLDING: WON the action for consolidation should be granted? - NO ● It should be brought against all indispensable parties and they must be properly summoned. In the case at bar, 3 children were not. ● As the petition of private respondent Rebollos sought to divest all of them of their undivided interest in the entire agricultural land, which undivided interest was never alienated by them to Rebollos, herein petitioners became indispensable parties. ● If anyone of the party defendants, who are all indispensable parties is not properly summoned, the court acquires no jurisdiction over the entire case and its decision and orders therein are null and void. ● The pacto de retro sale executed by Margarita de los Reyes "casada en segundas nuptias con Damaso Yturralde," expressly stipulates that she only sold all her rights, interests and participation in the lot covered by O.C.T. No. 2356. ● Margarita could not, for she had no right to, sell the entire lot, which is registered under O.C.T. No. 2356 "in the name of Francisco Yturralde married to Margarita de los Reyes." Said lot is acknowledged by herein petitioners as the conjugal property of Francisco and Margarita ● What she validly disposed of under the aforesaid pacto de retro sale of 1952 was only her conjugal share in the lot plus her successional right as heir in the conjugal share of her deceased husband Francisco. ● The 3 children, Josefina, Zosima and Ramon, are essential parties, without whom no valid judgment may be rendered, is further underscored by the fact that the agricultural land in question was owned by them in common and pro indiviso with their mother and their brothers and sisters and was not then as now physically partitioned among them.
In the Matter of Elwood Cluck, Debtor. Elwood Cluck Kristine A. Cluck First Capital Mortgage Company, Incorporated v. Randolph N. Osherow, Trustee Thomas William McKenzie, 101 F.3d 1081, 1st Cir. (1996)
