Arsenio Tabasondra, et al. Vs. Sps. Conrado Constantino, et al.
G.R. No. 196403. December 7, 2016

This case for partition and accounting concerns a property owned in common, and focuses on the right of two of the co-owners to alienate their shares before the actual division of the property.

The total area of the three lots owned in common by Cornelio, Valentina and Valeriana was 100,352 square meters; and that each of the co-owners had the right to one-third of such total area. Valentina and Valeriana executed the Deed of Absolute Sale, whereby they specifically disposed of their shares in the property registered under TCT No. 10612 in favor of Sebastian Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra.


1.    May Valentina and Valeriana alienate their pro indiviso shares even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner?

Yes.

The alienation covered the disposition of only their respective interests in the common property. According to Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner "shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved," but "the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership."


2.    What was the effect of the sale of pro indiviso shares by the co-owners to Sebastian Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra?

As a result of Valentina and Valeriana's alienation in favor of Sebastian and Tarcila of their pro indiviso shares in the three lots, Sebastian and Tarcila became co-owners of the 100,352-square meter property with Cornelio (later on, with the petitioners who were the successors-in-interest of Cornelio). In effect, Sebastian and Tarcila were co-owners of two-thirds of the property, with each of them having one-third pro indiviso share in the three lots, while the remaining one-third was co-owned by the heirs of Cornelio, namely, Sebastian, Tarcila and the petitioners.


3.    What is the proper disposition of fruits of property inherited?

The accounting of the fruits shall only involve the one-third portion of the property inherited from Cornelio.

Article 500. Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made. Likewise, each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. (n)

Article 1087. In the partition the co-heirs shall reimburse one another for the income and fruits which each one of them may have received from any property of the estate, for any useful and necessary expenses made upon such property, and for any damage thereto through malice or neglect. (1063)


4.    What is an action for partition?

An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. If the trial court should find after trial the existence of co-ownership among the parties, it may and should order the partition of the properties in the same action.

Section 2, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, which provides:

Section 2. Order for partition, and partition by agreement thereunder. - If after the trial the court finds that the plaintiff has the right thereto, it shall order the partition of the real estate among all the parties in interest. Thereupon the parties may, if they are able to agree, make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, and the court shall confirm the partition so agreed upon by all the parties, and such partition, together with the order of the court confirming the same, shall be recorded in the registry of deeds of the place in which the property is situated.(2a)

A final order decreeing partition and accounting may be appealed by any party aggrieved thereby. (n)


5.    What if the parties were unable to agree with the partition?

Should the parties be unable to agree on the partition, the next step for the RTC will be to appoint not more than three competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, and to command such commissioners to set off to each party in interest the part and proportion of the property as directed in this decision.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation

Asiga Mining Corporation Vs. Manila Mining Corporation and Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation G.R. No. 199081. January 24, 2018 1.      On March 31, 1997, Asiga applied with the Mines and Geosciences Bureau (MGB) to convert its mining claims into a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) as required by the Mining Act of 1995 and its implementing rules and regulations. It was during this application process when Asiga discovered that its mining claims overlapped with that of respondent Manila Mining Corporation (respondent MMC), by about 1,661 hectares, and of respondent Basiana Mining Exploration Corporation (respondent BMEC) by 214 hectares. After satisfying the initial mandatory requirements, respondents MMC and BMEC published and posted their respective Notices of Application for MPSA in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks, and posted the same in the bulletin boards of concerned government agencies. More than 3...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more