Facts:
The petitioners filed a complaint for the nullification of the sale of real property by respondent in favor of Lapinid; the recovery of possession and ownership of the property; and the payment of damages. The petitioners were co-owners, with Jesus, who filed an action for partition of the parcels of land against petitioners. The judgment was that Jesus, Mariano and Vicente were jointly authorized to sell the said properties and receive the proceeds thereof and distribute them to all the co-owners which was later amended to exclude Jesus co-owner but during inspection, it was found out that Lapinid was occupying a portion the lot by virtue of a deed of sale executed by Jesus. The petitioners prayed that the deed of sale to be null and void. Further, the complainants prayed for payment of rental fees. Jesus said that there was a partition case between him and the petitioners filed in 1993 involving several parcels of land. Then, Lapinid admitted that a deed of sale was entered into between him and Jesus pertaining to a parcel of land. However, he insisted on the validity of sale since Jesus showed him several deeds of sale making him a majority owner of the lot. He explained that Jesus permitted him to occupy a portion not exceeding 3000 square meters conditioned on the result of the partition of the co-owners. It was ruled that the buyers, including Lapinid, were buyers in good faith since a proof of ownership was shown to them by Jesus before buying the property. A partial motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners but it was denied. Moreover, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court that the compromise agreement did not affect the validity of the sale previously executed by Jesus and Lapinid.
The petitioners filed a complaint for the nullification of the sale of real property by respondent in favor of Lapinid; the recovery of possession and ownership of the property; and the payment of damages. The petitioners were co-owners, with Jesus, who filed an action for partition of the parcels of land against petitioners. The judgment was that Jesus, Mariano and Vicente were jointly authorized to sell the said properties and receive the proceeds thereof and distribute them to all the co-owners which was later amended to exclude Jesus co-owner but during inspection, it was found out that Lapinid was occupying a portion the lot by virtue of a deed of sale executed by Jesus. The petitioners prayed that the deed of sale to be null and void. Further, the complainants prayed for payment of rental fees. Jesus said that there was a partition case between him and the petitioners filed in 1993 involving several parcels of land. Then, Lapinid admitted that a deed of sale was entered into between him and Jesus pertaining to a parcel of land. However, he insisted on the validity of sale since Jesus showed him several deeds of sale making him a majority owner of the lot. He explained that Jesus permitted him to occupy a portion not exceeding 3000 square meters conditioned on the result of the partition of the co-owners. It was ruled that the buyers, including Lapinid, were buyers in good faith since a proof of ownership was shown to them by Jesus before buying the property. A partial motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners but it was denied. Moreover, the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court that the compromise agreement did not affect the validity of the sale previously executed by Jesus and Lapinid.
Issue:
Whether or not Jesus, as a co-owner, can validly sell a portion of the property he co-owns in favor of another person.
Whether or not Jesus, as a co-owner, can validly sell a portion of the property he co-owns in favor of another person.
Held:
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 truly abstract. Jesus can validly alienate his co-owned property in favor of Lapinid, free from any opposition from the co-owners. Lapinid validly obtained the same rights of Jesus from the date of the execution of a valid sale.
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 truly abstract. Jesus can validly alienate his co-owned property in favor of Lapinid, free from any opposition from the co-owners. Lapinid validly obtained the same rights of Jesus from the date of the execution of a valid sale.
Galing galing baby!!!!
ReplyDeleteSupport!!!! Woooohhhh