Eulalio Belisario acquired the two parcels of land in question.

He was
married to Paula Ira, whose son was Maximo Belisario, but such fact does
not appear in the records. The property regime of the spouses was that of
community of property. Eulalio Belisario conveyed the two parcels of land
to a certain Jose Castillo, reserving the right to repurchase. After the
death his wife, Eulalio and Maximo Belisario occupied and administered
the two parcels of land in common. A partnership was then created
between the Eulalio and his son Maximo. After some time, the lands were
forfeited and confiscated for non-payment of taxes.
A civil case was filed and order of attachment was issued against the
lands. At public auction, said lands were sold to McClure, represented by
Addison. Said order and notice were served upon Maximo and Eulalio;
and the same was presented to the registry of deeds but no entries have
been made. The attached lands were thereafter sold to the judgment
creditor, McClure, represented by Addison, but the sale was not recorded.
Eulalio, without Maximos permission, executed in favor of Basilio Borja,
who had no knowledge of the common ownership, a deed of sale of two
parcels of land in question, reserving the right to repurchase. On March 30,
1917, Addison purchased the land at the sheriffs execution sale. However,
the sheriffs execution sales were fatally defective for want of sufficient
publication of the notices of sale. Borja now seeks registration of the land,
against the opposition of the heirs of Maximo. The opposition claimed that
Eulalio had no right to sell Maximos share of the land.
ISSUE: WON Borja can demand registration of the land in his name.
RULING:
Yes, there may have been a partnership between Eulalio and Maximo, still
this fact was unknown to Borja. It was ruled that there is nothing in the law
that requires that the partnership between them be in writing for it to be
valid. A surviving husband may form a partnership with the heirs of the
deceased wife for the management and control of the community
property, but in the absence of the formalities, knowledge of the
existence of the new partnership or community of property must at least
be brought home to third persons dealing with the surviving husband in
regard to the community real property in order to bind them by the
community agreement.
Thus, the Supreme Court held that for the partnership to be binding to
third persons, and for Ferrers argument to be valid, such partnership must
be in accordance with the formalities of the Code of Commerce. In
effect, the whole property was conveyed to Borja in fee simple.