Reynaldo Reyes, as heir of Vitaliano Reyes vs. Sps. Wilfredo And Me Lit A Garcia, G.R. No. 225159, March 21, 2022

 

Reynaldo Reyes, as heir of Vitaliano Reyes vs. Sps. Wilfredo And Me Lit A Garcia, 

G.R. No. 225159, March 21, 2022

 

Facts:

1.     Petitioner Reynaldo Reyes claimed that Julian Reyes is the owner of an unregistered parcel of land.

2.     Julian and his spouse, Marcela Reyes (Marcela) had nine children, namely, Vitaliano, Maria, Felicidad, Ireneo, Isidoro, Anastacio, Julia, Vicente and Isadora. 

3.     Julian and Marcela died.

4.     The heirs of Julian and Marcela executed a "Partihan At Bilihan Nang Kalahating Bahagi ng Lupang Tirahan Sa Labas ng Hukuman," and sold half of the subject property to one of the heirs, Anastacio. 

5.     The remaining quarter of the subject property was occupied by Vitaliano's children, namely, petitioner and Fermin Reyes, while the other quarter was sold by Isidoro to respondents Wilfredo and Melita Garcia. 

6.     Sometime in 1997, petitioner and Fermin came to know of Isidoro's sale of ¼ of the subject property to respondents spouses Garcia when the latter filed an ejectment case against Fermin. 

7.     Thus, petitioner filed a complaint for recovery of ownership, quieting of title and annulment of deed of sale against the spouses Garcia alleging that the Deed of Sale is void since Isidoro is not the true and real owner of the subject property which originally belongs to Julian's estate.

 

Issues:

·      Whether or not Isidoro may sell ¼ of the subject property to respondents.

·      Whether or not petitioner's recourse of filing a complaint for nullification of sale and recovery of ownership is the proper action.

·      Whether or not spouses Garcia may claim specific portion of the subject property

 

You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

Ruling

 

FIRST ISSUE

 

The Supreme Court held that a co-owner may alienate an inchoate portion of the subject property which belongs to him or her. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides for the rights of the co-owners over a co-owned property.

 

Thus, Isidoro, as one of the heirs of Julian and Marcela, has the right to alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property even without the consent of the other co-heirs. However, as mere part owner, he cannot alienate the shares of the other co-owners. Nemo dat quod non habet. No one can give what he does not have. Hence, as correctly ruled by the courts a quo, Isidoro's sale of the remaining half of the subject property will only affect his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. The spouses Garcia will only get Isidoro's undivided share in the subject property.

 

 

 

 

SECOND ISSUE

 

The Supreme Court held that petitioner's recourse of filing a complaint for nullification of sale and recovery of ownership is not the proper action.

 

The Supreme Court explained in Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals that the appropriate remedy is not a nullification of the sale or for the recovery of the thing owned in common but a division of the common property.

 

To demand a partition or division of the common property is in accord with Article 494 of the Civil Code, that is, 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 or her share is concerned. 

 

Petitioner's contention that the subject property would be rendered unserviceable if it would be divided among the co-owners, is without legal merit. It bears stressing that petitioner's issue is addressed by the provisions of Article 498 in relation with Article 495.

 

THIRD ISSUE

 

The spouses Garcia, as co-owner of the subject property by virtue of the deed of sale executed by Isidoro in their favor, cannot claim a specific portion of the subject property prior to its partition. With the subsistence of co-ownership, the spouses Garcia only owns Isidoro's undivided aliquot share of the subject property. The spouses Garcia and all the co-owners cannot adjudicate to himself or herself title to any definite portion of the subject property until its actual partition by agreement or judicial decree. 


You can support our page by clicking any of the following links: 

 

RPC Book 1 by Reyes

Codal Set

Statutory Construction

Introduction to Law

Criminal Procedure

Law On Property

Human Rights Education

Civil Law Reviewer

Constitutional Law

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Powered by Blogger.

Blogger templates

About