G.R. No. 189420 Case Digest

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

Raul Arambulo and Teresita Dela Cruz

vs Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy Nolasco

Ponente: Perez

                                          

Facts:

Petitioners, together with their siblings and their mother co-owned a 233sq.m. Land in Tondo, Manila. When their mother died, she was succeeded by her husband, Genero Nolasco and their children.

On January 8, 1999, 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 respondents are withholding their consent and whether this withholding is prejudicial to the petitioners.

RTC: ruled in favor with petitioners and ordered Nolasco to give their consent to sale.

Nolasco filed a notice of appeal to the CA.

CA: reversed the RTc decision, saying that the petitioners cannot compel Nolasco to give their consent.

Held: CA was right.

From the foregoing, it may be deduced that 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–owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co–owner–seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co–owner of the property.

To be a co–owner of a property does not mean that one is deprived of every recognition of the disposal of the thing, of the free use of his right within the circumstantial conditions of such judicial status, nor is it necessary, for the use and enjoyment, or the right of free disposal, that the previous consent of all the interested parties be obtained.