Raul Arambulo and Teresita Dela Cruz vs.

Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy

Nolasco
G.R. No. 189420 March 26, 2014

Facts:

Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, petitioners, together with their
siblings and their mother co-owned a land. Petitioners filed a petition for relief
alleging that all co-owners, except for Nolasco, have authorized to sell their
respective shares to the properties, saying that in the Civil Code, if one or more co-
owners shall withhold their consent to the alterations in the thing owned in
common, the courts may afford adequate relief.
Nolasco responded that they did not know about the intention to sell,
because they were not called to participate in the negotiations regarding the sale of
the property.

Issue: Whether the withholding of the consent of the respondents is prejudicial to

the petitioners?

Ruling:
No. Since a coowner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the
entire property by one coowner without the consent of the other coowners is not
null and void. However, only the rights of the coownerseller are transferred,
thereby making the buyer a coowner of the property.
Petitioners who project themselves as prejudiced co-owners may bring a suit
for partition, which is one of the modes of extinguishing co- ownership. Article 494
of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-
ownership, and that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing
owned in common insofar as his share is concerned.

Vda. de Figuracion vs. Figuracion-Gerilla

G.R. No. 151334 February 13, 2013

Facts:
Agripina and Carolina are half-sisters. Their father owned the Lot No. 707
which is the subject of the controversy. Agripina executed a Deed of Quitclaim in
favor of Emilia (respondent) which is the daughter of Carolina. Carolina on the other
hand executed an Affidavit of Self-Adjudication over the lot and later on sold it to
petitioner Hilaria and Felipa. Petitioners threatened to demolish the house of Emilia
built on the eastern half of the lot. Emilia instituted an action for partition.

Issue: Whether the respondent can compel the partition of Lot. No. 707?

Ruling

Yes. The first stage in an action for partition is the settlement of the issue of
ownership. Such an action will not lie if the claimant has no rightful interest in the
subject property. In fact, the parties filing the action are required by the Rules of
Court to set forth in their complaint the nature and the extent of their title to the
property. It would be premature to effect a partition until and unless the question of
ownership is first definitely resolved.

Here, the respondent traces her ownership over the eastern half of Lot No.
707 from the Deed of Quitclaim executed by Agripina, who in turn, was the co-
owner thereof being one of the legitimate heirs of Eulalio. It is well to recall that the
petitioners failed to categorically dispute the existence of the Deed of Quitclaim.
Instead, they averred that it has been rendered ineffective by TCT No. 42244 in the
name of Felipa and Hilariathis contention is, of course, flawed.