Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 99 views

    Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation (G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007)

    Uploaded by

    Cris Margot Luyaben
    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases dealing with issues related to co-ownership of property: 1) Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation established that co-owners can dispose of their individual shares without consent of other co-owners. The sale only affects the selling co-owner's share. 2) Aguirre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals held that a sale by one co-owner of the entire property only conveys that co-owner's share, and the buyer becomes a co-owner. 3) Balao vs. CA found that if a defendant asserts exclusive title in a partition case, the court should resolve ownership first before dismissing or allowing the partition

    Copyright:

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

    Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation (G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007)

    Uploaded by

    Cris Margot Luyaben
    99 views5 pages
    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases dealing with issues related to co-ownership of property: 1) Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation established that co-owners can dispose of their individual shares without consent of other co-owners. The sale only affects the selling co-owner's share. 2) Aguirre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals held that a sale by one co-owner of the entire property only conveys that co-owner's share, and the buyer becomes a co-owner. 3) Balao vs. CA found that if a defendant asserts exclusive title in a partition case, the court should resolve ownership first before dismissing or allowing the partition

    Original Description:

    property

    Original Title

    cases

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases dealing with issues related to co-ownership of property: 1) Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation established that co-owners can dispose of their individual shares without consent of other co-owners. The sale only affects the selling co-owner's share. 2) Aguirre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals held that a sale by one co-owner of the entire property only conveys that co-owner's share, and the buyer becomes a co-owner. 3) Balao vs. CA found that if a defendant asserts exclusive title in a partition case, the court should resolve ownership first before dismissing or allowing the partition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    99 views5 pages

    Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation (G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007)

    Uploaded by

    Cris Margot Luyaben
    This document summarizes three Philippine Supreme Court cases dealing with issues related to co-ownership of property: 1) Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation established that co-owners can dispose of their individual shares without consent of other co-owners. The sale only affects the selling co-owner's share. 2) Aguirre, et al. vs. Court of Appeals held that a sale by one co-owner of the entire property only conveys that co-owner's share, and the buyer becomes a co-owner. 3) Balao vs. CA found that if a defendant asserts exclusive title in a partition case, the court should resolve ownership first before dismissing or allowing the partition

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 5

    Oesmer vs. Paraiso Development Corporation(G.R. No.

    157493, February 5, 2007)


    FACTS: Petitioners Rizalino, Ernesto, Leonora, Bibiano, Jr., Librado, and
    Enriquita, Adolfo and Jesus, Oesmer are brothers and sisters, and the coowners of undivided shares of two parcel of land. Respondent Paraiso
    Development Corporation drafted a Contract to Sell5 signed by the
    petitioners except Adolfo and Jesus. A check in the amount of P100,000.00,
    payable to Ernesto, was given as option money. Later, the petitioners
    informed the respondent of their intention to rescind the Contract to Sell and
    to return the amount of P100,000.00.
    Petitioners filed a Complaint7 for Declaration of Nullity or for Annulment
    of Option Agreement or Contract to Sell with Damages before the RTC. The
    RTC ruled that the contract to sell was valid and binding. Ernesto, who was
    alleged to have acted as an agent, was ordered to execute the Contract of
    Absolute Sale concerning his 1/8 share over the subject two parcels of land in
    favor of herein respondent.
    Petitioners appealed to CA which ordered petitioners who signed the
    contract to execute the Deed of Absolute Sale concerning their 6/8 share
    over the subject two parcels of land and in favor of herein respondent.
    ISSUE :whether or not the rights of Adolfo and Jesus as co-owners of the
    subject land is affected by the contract to sell
    RULING: No, The Supreme Court explained that being owners of their
    respective undivided shares in the subject properties, they can dispose of
    their shares even without the consent of all the co-heirs. Article 493 of the
    Civil Code expressly provides: Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of
    his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may
    therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person
    in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved.
    The Supreme Court affirmed the ruling of the CA

    AGUIRRE, ET AL. vs. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.


    G.R. No. 122249 January 29, 2004
    FACTS: Leocadio Medrano and his first wife Emilia owned a piece of land. When
    Emilia died, he married Miguela. When Leocadio died, all his heirs agreed that Sixto
    Medrano, a child of the first marriage, should manage and administer the said
    property. After Sixto died, his siblings learned that he sold a portion of the subject
    land to Tiburcio Balitaan and another portion to Maria Bacong, Maria Bacong later
    sold the said portion to Rosendo Bacong. Petitioners, all heirs of Leocadio who were
    affected by the sale demanded reconveyance of the portions sold by Sixto but the 3
    vendees refused. Resultantly, petitioners filed a suit against them seeking the
    nullity of the documents and partition thereof. The vendees contended that they
    acquired the property under the valid deed of sale and petitioners cause of action
    was barred by laches and prescription. Tiburcio also contended that he is an
    innocent purchaser for value.
    ISSUE: Whether or not there was a valid sale considering the fact that it was made
    without the consent of the co-owners
    RULING: The Supreme Court held that the sale was a valid conveyance only
    insofar as the share of Sixto Medrano in the co-ownership is concerned. Under
    Article 493 of the New Civil Code, a sale by a co-owner of the whole property as his
    will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not
    consent to the sale). The provision clearly provides that the sale or other disposition
    affects only the sellers share, and the transferee gets only what corresponds to his
    grantors share in the partition of the property owned in common. Since a co-owner
    is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner
    without the consent of the other co-owner is not null and void; only the rights of the
    co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the
    property.

    BALO vs. CA G.R. No. 129704 September 30, 2005


    FACTS: Josefina Garrido filed a complaint for Judicial Partition of Real
    Properties and Accounting with Damages against Ulpiano Balo and his
    children alleging that she and petitioners are the co-owners of undivided
    parcels of land. The subject lands were originally owned by the spouses
    Eugenio Balo, Sr. and Ma. Pasagui-Balo, who had two children, Ulpiano, Sr.
    and Maximino, the father of Garrido who already died. Immediately upon the
    death of her grandfather, the petitioners took possession of the land without
    her knowledge and consent.
    ISSUE : WHETHER OR NOT THE ACTION FOR JUDICIAL PARTITION sgould be
    dismissed when the the defendant asserts exclusive title over the property
    RULING : The Supreme court agreed to the ruling of the CA that An action
    for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for
    segregation and conveyance of a determine portion of the properties
    involved. If the defendant asserts exclusive title over the property, the action
    for partition should not be dismissed. Rather, the court should resolve the
    case and if the plaintiff is unable to sustain his claimed status as a co-owner,
    the court should dismiss the action, not because the wrong remedy was
    availed of, but because no basis exists for requiring the defendant to submit
    to partition. If, on the other hand, the court after trial should find the
    existence of co-ownership among the parties, the court may and should
    order the partition of the properties in the same action.

    Robles vs. CA (G.R. No. 123509, March 14, 2000)


    FACTS : Petitioners allege that they inherited a parcel of land from their father,
    Silvino, who in turn had inherited it from his father, Leon. They maintain that after
    their father's death, they agreed among themselves that Lucio Robles would be
    tending and cultivating it for everyone, and their half-brother Hilario would be
    paying the land taxes.
    In 1962, for unknown reasons, the tax declaration of the parcel of land in the
    name of Silvino Robles was canceled and transferred to Exequiel Ballena, father-inlaw of Hilario Robles. Exequiel Ballena secured a loan from the Antipolo Rural Bank,
    using the tax declaration as security which was later transferred to the name of
    Antipolo Rural Bank then to the name of defendant Hilario Robles and his wife. In
    1996, Andrea Robles secured a loan from the Cadona Rural Bank, Inc which later
    forclosed the property, Rural Bank emerged as the highest bidder which later sold
    the same to the Spouses Vergel Santos and Ruth Santos.
    ISSUES : Whether there was a transfer of ownership and possession from the heirs
    of Silvino to Exequiel
    -whether or not there was repudiation of the co-ownership
    RULING: The Supreme Court held that there was no presented proof of the deed of
    conveyance so there could be no transfer of ownership and possession from the
    heirs of Silvino to Exequiel. It is a fundamental principle that a co-owner cannot
    acquire by prescription the share of the other co-owners, absent any clear
    repudiation of the co-ownership. In order that the title may prescribe in favor of a
    co-owner, the following requisites must concur: (1) the co-owner has performed
    unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting to an ouster of the other co-owners; (2)
    such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owner; and

    (3) the evidence thereof is clear and convincing. Hilario effected no clear and
    evident repudiation of the co-ownership because he did not have possession of the
    subject property and did not exclude the petitioners from the use and the
    enjoyment thereof, as they had indisputably shared in its fruits.
    The sale of the subject property to the Santos spouses is valid insofar as it pertained
    to Hilarios share only.

    You might also like