Co-Ownership

TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

G.R. No. 122!2. O"#o$er 12, 1%%%
F&"#s'
A parcel of land was left by Juan De Castro who died intestate. Tomas Claudio Memorial College
bought the land from Mariano De Castro, one of the deceaseds heirs who represented himself as sole
owner. The other heirs filed an action for partition asserting that the sale affected only share of Mariano
and not the entire land.
Iss(e' Whether the sale affected only the undiided share of the Mariano being the seller whos only one
of the heirs.
)e*+'
!es. "en if a co#owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but
not those of the other co#owners who did not consent to the sale. $ince a co#owner is entitled to sell his
undiided share, a sale of the entire property by one co#owner without the consent of the other co#owners
is not null and oid. %oweer, only the rights of the co#owner&seller are transferred, thereby ma'ing the
buyer a co#owner of the property. The proper action in a case li'e this, is not for the nullification of the
sale, or for the recoery of possession of the property owned in common from the third person, but for
diision or partition of the entire property if it continued to remain in the possession of the co#owners who
possessed and administered it.
LUCIO RO,LES, e# &*. v. COURT OF APPEALS
G.R. No. 12-./%. M&r"h 1, 2///
F&"#s'
(etitioners inherited a parcel of land from their father. They entrusted the payment of ta)es to
their co#heir and half#brother, %ilario *obles. The ta) declaration was transferred to %ilarios father#in#law.
%ilario secured a loan from Cardona *ural +an'. The ban' foreclosed the land for %ilarios failure to pay
the mortgage debt and sold the same to spouses $antos. An action for ,uieting title was filed by
respondent $antos. (etitioners asseerate that they had been in possession of land since -./0 and it
was only in -.12 when they 'new about the foreclosure.
Iss(e'
Whether the mortgage did not diest the petitioners of title to the land when the complaint for
,uieting of title was filed as %ilario was a mere co#owner of the property.
)e*+'
!es. %ilario effected no clear and eident repudiation of the co#ownership. 3n order that the title
may prescribe in faor of a co#owner, the following re,uisites must concur4 5-6 the co#owner has
performed une,uiocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co#owners7 506 such
positie acts of repudiation hae been made 'nown to the other co#owners7 and 586 the eidence thereof
is clear and conincing.
%ilario did not hae possession of the sub9ect property7 neither did he e)clude the petitioners from
the use and the en9oyment thereof, as they had indisputably shared in its fruits. :i'ewise, his act of
entering into a mortgage contract with the ban' cannot be construed to be a repudiation of the co#
ownership. As absolute owner of his undiided interest in the land, he had the right to alienate his share,
as he in fact did. ;either should his payment of land ta)es in his name, as agreed upon by the co#owners,
be construed as a repudiation of the co#ownership. The assertion that the declaration of ownership was
tantamount to repudiation was belied by the continued occupation and possession of the disputed
property by the petitioners as owners.