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

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.

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

157493, February 5, 2007)

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

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

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

You might also like