Abby Co

HEIRS OF LIMENSE V. DE RAMOS

FACTS:

The parties are co-owners of a property (with five subdivided lots) transferred to them
by donation from their father

The respondent constructed a residnetial building on one of the lots

Thereafter, the pertitioner acquired a TCT on the lot adjacent to that of the
respondents; and obtained a permit to build a fence on the boundary between the
petitioner and respondents lots. The fence, however, could not be constructed
because a substantial portion of the respondents building encroached upon portions of
the petitioners area.

PETITIONERS prayed that the RTC issue an order directing the respondents to remove
the structure encroaching upon his property

RESPONDENTS answered that that petitioners lot has been used as a commen alley,
such therefore could not be fenced without casing damage and prejudice to the
respondents

RTC ruled in favor of the respondents. No fence should be built because there is an
apparent easement of right of way.

CA ruled in favor of the respondents, affirming RTCs decision. CA added that

Petitioners TCT was spurious and that a coownership existed between the respondents
and petitioners over the lot of the petitioner.
ISSUE 1: WON Respondents have an easement of right of way
HELD 1: YES, respondents have right of way. The easement is Apparent and Discontinuous,
being an alley showing a permanent path. Regardless of the fact that the TCT of the
petitioner did not contain any annotation evidencing such easement, the petitioners are
bound by the easement becase the petitioners are aware that there exists an easement,
such easement being apparent.
ISSUE 2: WON Respondents building was built in good faith. WON Respondent;s building
should be removed.
HELD 2: Respondents building was built in Good Faith, such thus cannot be removed at
Respondents expense. The house was built when the aprties were still co-owners of the
property, before partition was made. Encroachment only appeared to be so because of the
effect of partition; the respondents therefore cannot be said to have built the building in
bad faith.
Since the respondents are in good faith, the petitioners cannot ask for the demolition of the
structure the the respondents expense. Article 448 applies. The remedy of the petitioners
is choose between (1) the appropriation of the building and indemnify the respondent for
the necessary and useful expenses they incurred and (2) sale of the land to the
respondents.
ISSUE 3: WON Petitioners title is being collateraly attacked
HELD 3: YES, the respondents are collaterally attacking the validity of the Torrens title of
the petitioner. The title of the petitioner became indefeasible and incontrovertible after the
lapse of one year from its registration and issuance. The petitioner therefore has the right
to enclose or fence his land; BUT he must do so without causing detriment to the servitude
constituted thereon.
RAUL ARAMBULO, TERESITA DELA CRUZ V. GENARO AND JEREMY NOLASCO
FACTS:

8 children, along with their mother, coown a property

One of the 8 children, was succeded by her husband and 3 children, the
Respondents in this case.

PETITIONERS (7 children and mother) wanted to sell the property. They went to
RTC alleging that all the coowners except the respondents have given their

consent to sell, except the respondents. And that pursuant to Art 491, the courts
may afford adequate relief in the event one of the coowners withhold their
consent to acts of alterations
RESPONDENTS (husband and 3 children of 1 coowner) argue that they werent
made aware of the sale
RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners and ordered the respondents to give their
consent because withholding of consent is prejudicial to the common interest of
the coowners
CA ruled in favor of the respondents ruling that respondents had full ownership of
their undivided interest and cannot be compelled to sell their undivided share

ISSUE: WON the respondents may be compelled to give their consent to the sale
HELD:
NO. Art. 491 is not applicable in this case. Although alienation is an act of alteration, sale of
coowned property is not necessarily covered in Art 491 because such is an act of
dominion... Art 493 therefore is applicable.
Respondents cannot be compelled to give their consent to the sale pursuant to Art. 493
stating that each coowner shall have full ownershop of his part and can sell fully their own
part without the consent of the others.
Common interest is not prejuduced by the respondents refusal to sell because the other
coowners (petitioners) may still proceed with selling their own ideal share; making the
buyers coowners with the respondents. (bahala na sila respondents kung unsa ilang gusto
buhatun; kung gusto ni petitioners mag sell, go lang!)
Remedy of petitioners
1. Ask for partition. Art 494 nobody shall be obliged to remain in the coownership
and each coowner may demand coownership at any time.
2. Sell the property and thereafter divide the proceeds. Pursuant to Art 498, this may
be resorted to when the thing is indivisible and the coowners cannot agree who
among them shall be assigned the entire property.
HEIRS OF DELA ROSA V. BATONGBACAL
FACTS:

Petitioner Reynaldo is one of the 4 co owners of a property. He offered to sell the

property to respondents and received an amount as downpayment. The parties agreed
the a SPA authorizing the petitioner to alienate the property on behalof his coowners,
shall be delivered to the respondents. Since the petitioner failed to do so...

RESPONDENTS initiated an action for specific performance

PETITIONER countered that the contract between them is an Equitable Mortgage where
the respondents will loan him money and such will be payable when he receives his
share in the proceeds of the land.

RTC. The Contract to Sell is unenforceable and Petitioner Reynaldo cannot be

compelled to deliver the subject property since he must be authorized by an SPA to be
able to bind his co-owners. Petitioner must therefore RETURN the amount he recived .

CA. The sale is valid insofar as the ideal share of Petitioner Reynaldo is concerned; and
no SPA is necessary for the petitioner to dispose his undivided share.
HELD:
There is no equitable mortgage. The Contract to Sell involving the petitioners ideal share
in the coowned property is valid and enforceable
Pursuant to Art. 493, a coowner has the absolute right to alienate, assign or mortgage his
pro indiviso share in the coowned property without the consent of his coowners because he
has full ownership of his part and ofthe fruits and benefits pertaining thereto.
Any condition requiring a coowner to secure an authority from his coowners for the
alienation of his ideal sharel should be considered a mere surplusage, and should not affect
the validity or enforceability of the contract.

ANTIPOLO INING V. LEONARDO VEGA

FACTS: