Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 103 views

    Recio VS Argueda

    Uploaded by

    Paula Toroba
    - Nena Recio leased land from the Altamirano family and Reman Recio remained in peaceful possession after Nena's death. Alejandro Altamirano negotiated with Reman on behalf of the Altamirano heirs to sell the land. Reman made partial payments to Alejandro. - The trial court ruled the sale to another party was void, but the appellate court found the sale of Alejandro's aliquot share to Reman was valid, though Reman did not fully pay. The sale of the other heirs' shares was valid except for Alejandro's portion. - The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that absent consent of all co-owners,

    Copyright:

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

    Recio VS Argueda

    Uploaded by

    Paula Toroba
    103 views1 page
    - Nena Recio leased land from the Altamirano family and Reman Recio remained in peaceful possession after Nena's death. Alejandro Altamirano negotiated with Reman on behalf of the Altamirano heirs to sell the land. Reman made partial payments to Alejandro. - The trial court ruled the sale to another party was void, but the appellate court found the sale of Alejandro's aliquot share to Reman was valid, though Reman did not fully pay. The sale of the other heirs' shares was valid except for Alejandro's portion. - The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that absent consent of all co-owners,

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    RECIO VS ARGUEDA

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    - Nena Recio leased land from the Altamirano family and Reman Recio remained in peaceful possession after Nena's death. Alejandro Altamirano negotiated with Reman on behalf of the Altamirano heirs to sell the land. Reman made partial payments to Alejandro. - The trial court ruled the sale to another party was void, but the appellate court found the sale of Alejandro's aliquot share to Reman was valid, though Reman did not fully pay. The sale of the other heirs' shares was valid except for Alejandro's portion. - The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that absent consent of all co-owners,

    Copyright:

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

    Recio VS Argueda

    Uploaded by

    Paula Toroba
    - Nena Recio leased land from the Altamirano family and Reman Recio remained in peaceful possession after Nena's death. Alejandro Altamirano negotiated with Reman on behalf of the Altamirano heirs to sell the land. Reman made partial payments to Alejandro. - The trial court ruled the sale to another party was void, but the appellate court found the sale of Alejandro's aliquot share to Reman was valid, though Reman did not fully pay. The sale of the other heirs' shares was valid except for Alejandro's portion. - The Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court's ruling that absent consent of all co-owners,

    Copyright:

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

    RECIO VS.

    HEIRS OF ARGUEDA
    G.R. No. 182349               July 24, 2013
    FACTS:
    Nena Recio, mother of Reman Recio leased from the Altamiranos a parcel of land with
    improvements. The Altamiranos inherited the subject land from their deceased parents, the
    spouses Aguedo Altamirano and Maria Vaduvia. The sale of the land to Nena Recio did not
    materialize. The Altamiranos consolidated the two parcels of land covered by the TCT and
    subdivided into 3 parcels of lands. Reman and his family remained in the peaceful possession
    of Lot 3. He renewed Nena’s option to buy the subject property. They conducted negotiations
    with Alejandro who introduced himself as representing the other heirs. After which, the
    Altamiranos through Alejandro entered into an oral contract of sale with the petitioner and made
    partial payments which Alejandro received.  Then, the petitioner offered to pay the remaining
    balance, but Alejandro kept on avoiding the petitioner. Recio filed a case and while its pending,
    it was discovered that the property was sold to respondents Spouses Lajarca.

    The RTC ruled that the Absolute Sale between Altamiranos and the Lajarcas was Null and Void,
    but the Court of Appeals modified that the sale between Alejandro and Recio is valid only with
    respect to the aliquot share of Alejandro. CA held that Alejandro’s sale of Not. No. 3 did not bind
    his co-owners because a sale of real property by one purporting to be an agent of the owner
    without any written authority from the latter is null and void. An SPA from co-owners pursuant to
    Art 1878 of the NCC is necessary.

    ISSUE:
    Is there a perfected contract of sale?

    RULING:
    In the instant case shows no evidence on record of specific acts which the Altamiranos made
    before tile sale of the subject property to the petitioner, indicating that they fully knew of the
    representation of Alejandro. All that the petitioner relied upon were acts that happened after the
    sale to him. Absent the consent of Alejandro's co-owners, the Court holds that the sale between
    the other Altamiranos and the petitioner is null and void. But as held by the appellate court, the
    sale between the petitioner and Alejandro is valid insofar as the aliquot share of respondent
    Alejandro is concerned. Being a co-owner, Alejandro can validly and legally dispose of his share
    even without the consent of all the other co-heirs. Since the balance of the full price has not yet
    been paid, the amount paid shall represent as payment to his aliquot share. This then leaves
    the sale of the lot of the Altamiranos to the Spouses Lajarca valid only insofar as their shares
    are concerned, exclusive of the aliquot part of Alejandro, as ruled by the CA. The Court finds no
    reversible error with the decision of the CA in all respects.

    You might also like