Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 553 views

    Panganiban V Oamil

    Uploaded by

    ajyu
    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a land dispute case. The land in question was owned jointly by several heirs. One heir, Partenio, entered into an agreement to sell his share of the land to Oamil. However, the other heirs were not made parties to the case by Oamil regarding the sale. The Supreme Court found that the other heirs, as co-owners of the land, were indispensable parties that should have been included. Without including all co-owners, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine specific portions of the land to be awarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Panganiban V Oamil

    Uploaded by

    ajyu
    553 views1 page
    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a land dispute case. The land in question was owned jointly by several heirs. One heir, Partenio, entered into an agreement to sell his share of the land to Oamil. However, the other heirs were not made parties to the case by Oamil regarding the sale. The Supreme Court found that the other heirs, as co-owners of the land, were indispensable parties that should have been included. Without including all co-owners, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine specific portions of the land to be awarded.

    Original Description:

    digest

    Original Title

    Panganiban v Oamil

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a land dispute case. The land in question was owned jointly by several heirs. One heir, Partenio, entered into an agreement to sell his share of the land to Oamil. However, the other heirs were not made parties to the case by Oamil regarding the sale. The Supreme Court found that the other heirs, as co-owners of the land, were indispensable parties that should have been included. Without including all co-owners, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine specific portions of the land to be awarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    553 views1 page

    Panganiban V Oamil

    Uploaded by

    ajyu
    The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals regarding a land dispute case. The land in question was owned jointly by several heirs. One heir, Partenio, entered into an agreement to sell his share of the land to Oamil. However, the other heirs were not made parties to the case by Oamil regarding the sale. The Supreme Court found that the other heirs, as co-owners of the land, were indispensable parties that should have been included. Without including all co-owners, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to determine specific portions of the land to be awarded.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    Panganiban v Oamil

    22 January 2008 | Ynares-Santiago


    Overview: When Partenio executed the Agreement to Sell, Oamil knew that the property she was purchasing was conjugal
    property owned in common by Partenio and the heirs of his deceased wife. Yet, Oamil did not intervene nor take any part or
    opposition as assignee in the partition proceedings. She did not exercise her rights granted her. As Partenios successor-ininterest, Oamil could not acquire any superior right in the property than what Partenio is entitled to or could transfer or
    alienate after partition.The TC decision was rendered without any effect because the heirs of Partenio as co-partners should
    have been included in the suit.
    Statement of the Case
    Petition for review on certiorari
    Statement of Facts
    Julita Oamil filed a complaint for specific performance with damages praying that Partenio Rombaua be ordered to
    execute a final deed of sale over the parcel of land which was subject of a prior Agreement to sell executed by and
    between them. Oamil claims that such land is the conjugal share of Partenio from the lot of his deceased wife and the rest of
    the lots are co-owned by their heirs (other petitioners in this case). Partenio was declard in default and the TC promulgated a
    decision ordering the execution of the deed of absolute sale. However, the TC did not specifiy which portion of the property
    shoulde be deed to Oamil as buyer of Partenios share.
    The heirs filed a verified petition from relief from the decision of the TC on the ground that Partenios share is being
    litigated in a partition case which is pending with the CA, hence the TC may not render a decision disposing of a definite area
    in Oamils favor and that they were unjustly deprived of their right to protect their interests, notwithstanding that they were
    indispensable parties, when they were not impleaded in the case. TC denied the petition for relief.
    Sotero Gan filed a motion for leave of court to intervene on the ground that he is the rightful and actual owner of
    Partenios conjugal share. TC denied his motion for being filed out of time. CA affirmed the denial of the TC.
    Applicable Laws:
    Issues:
    WON the heirs can intervene? Yes, the TC committed error in its decision.
    WON Gan can intervene? No, it was filed out of time (no ratio for this, SC just affirmed CA for the same ground).
    Rationale
    Under a co-ownership, the ownership of an undivided thing or right belongs to different persons. During the
    existence of the co-ownership, no individual can claim title to any definite portion of the community property until the partition
    thereof; and prior to the partition, all that the co-owner has is an ideal or abstract quota or proportionate share in the entire
    land or thing. Before partition in a co-ownership, every co-owner has the absolute ownership of his undivided interest in the
    common property. The co-owner is free to alienate, assign, mortgage this undivided interest, except as to purely personal
    rights. The effect of any such transfer is limited to the portion which may be awarded to him upon the partition of the
    property.
    As Partenios successor-in-interest, Oamil could not acquire any superior right in the property than what Partenio is
    entitled to or could transfer or alienate after partition. When Partenio executed the Agreement to Sell, Oamil knew that the
    property she was purchasing was conjugal property owned in common by Partenio and the heirs of his deceased wife. Yet,
    Oamil did not intervene nor take any part or opposition as assignee in the partition proceedings. She did not exercise her
    rights granted her. Instead, she decided to suspend the proceedings and hold the same in abeyance while the appeal in her
    special civil action remain unresolved. It was also irregular for Oamil to have obtained a certificate being aware of the
    existing co-ownership had not been terminated.
    It is to be noted that the court trying the civil suit was not a partition court and had no jurisdiction to act as one. TCs
    trying an ordinary action cannot resolve to perform acts pertaining to a special proceeding because it is subject to specific
    prescribed rules. The TC also disregarded the previous cases decision when it awarded and undefined portion. As a court
    litgating an ordinary civil suit, it could only determine the rights and obligations of the parties with respect to Partenios
    undivided share.
    Judgment: decision of CA is reversed and set aside.

    You might also like