Sie sind auf Seite 1von 2

B3 2.


Plaintiff- a person who brings a case against Manuel, Mariano, Pura, Cariddad Melencio all
another in a court of law. surnamed MELENCIO
Defendant- sued or accused person in a court Dy Tiao Lay
of law (appellee)
Gr no 32047
Date November 1, 1930
Ponente Ostrand

Releveant facts

 On August 1 1927, the plaintiffs brought an action for the recovery of the possession of a parcel of
land situated in Nueva Ecija and further demanded a monthly rental of 300 for the use and
occupation of the are from May 1926 until the surrender of the possession thereof.
 The land in question was originally owned by Julian Melencio and when he died he left the said land
to his widow (Ruperta G) and 5 children (Juliana, Ruperta, Pedro, Emelio and Ramon)

 The appellee was occupying the said land by virtue of a contract of lease which started from 1905
which was executed by Ruperta Garcia ( wife) and (some of his children)Juliana, Ruperta, Pedro
Meleciano but neither Jose (Son of Emelio) nor Ramon Meleciano were mention on the lease.
 Ramon Meleciano died in 1914 and Liberata Macapagal- Melencio, was appointed as administratrix.
The land in questioned was registered under the Torrens System but the lease was not mentioned in
the certificate of title.
 And in 1920, the heirs of Julian Meleciano executed an extrajudicial partition of the land. And the
land in question fell to the share of Ramon Meleciano ( father of the plaintiffs)
 In the contract of lease it was stated that the term was for 20 years and is extendible at the option of
lessee. It was also stipulated that at the termination of the term period the lessor may purchase the
building and improvements in the said land but failure to do so, the lease would continue for another
period of 20 years.
 Liberata, collected the monthly rent until May 1926 ande she also demanded to the lessee that the
rent should be increase to php300. She was informed by the defendant that they were entitled to an
extension of the lease at the original rental. But the plaintiff insisted that they have no knowledge of
the existence of such contract. And that contract should be declared null and void for lack of consent,
concurrence and ratification by the ratification thereof
 The Rtc held a judgement in favor of the defendants

ISSUE: won the contract of lease should be declared null and void for lack of consent of the co-owners.
Held: Yes. Art 397 of the civil code provides that, “none of the owners shall, without the common
consent of the others, make any alterations even though such alterations might be advantageous to all”

A contract of lease may give rise to real right in favor of the lessee and it would then constitute such
asundering of the ownership as transcends mere management; In such case, it must of necessity be
recognized that the part owners representing the greater portion of the property held in common have
no power to lease the said property for a longer period that six years without consent of all the co-
owners, whose proprietary rights, expressly recognized by the law, would by contracts of long duration
be restricted or annulled.

However, the court, has suggested that by reason of prescription and by acceptance of the benefits of
the under the lease, the plaintiffs are estopped to question the authority for making the lease.

To this the burden of proof of the prescription devolved upon the defendant and as far as we can find,
there is no proof that Ramon Melencio and his successors ever had knowledge of the existence of the
lease in question. The fact that Ramon during his life time received his share of the products of the land
owned in common with his co heirs is not sufficient proof of knowledge of the existence of the contract
of lease when it is considered that the land in question is only a portion of a large tract which his brother
is administrating in connection with other community property.

The appealed judgment is now therefore reversed.