Tuason vs tuaso

Characters: Issue:
Angela tuason(plaintiff-appellant) Should the contract be declared Null and
Nieves Tuason de barreto void?
Antonio tuason Jr.(Defendant)
Rationale: Nope
Facts;  The contract or the memorandum of
 The sibling tuasons own a parcel of agreement is far from violating the
land in sampaloc manila and each Art of 400 which the purpose is to
one of them own 1’3 portion of the forbid a co owner from being
said land. Nieves asked for the obliged to remain a party to the
partition, when It didn’t work out, community. The said contract in this
nieves then offered to sell the 1/3rd case has for its object the
of her share to her 2 siblings in dissolution of the community
which both of them have declined property and the co ownership. in
 Nieves then managed to sold the other words, the contract is not
1/3rd to Gregorio Araneta Inc. violating the provision as they both
 Then the 3 owners agreed the whole have the same purpose which is to
land to be subdivide into small lots eventually dissolve the co ownership
then sell it so the proceeds could be in a profitable manner.
divided among themselves.
 Araneta who was a member of the
board of directors and also the
acting atty. In fact of the 2 co
owners executed a contract with
araneta, inc agreeing for the
improvement of the property and
also Araneta inc was vested to sell
the property and the 50 percent
gross selling price shall go to araneta
inc and the other 50 percent shall be
divided among the 3 co owners.
 In the same agreement it was also
state dthat no co owners shall
alienate or dispose property without
a notice to the ther co owners
 Angela tuason then revoked thhe
said powers vested in Antonio
Araneta because of breach of the
terms and abuse of power she then
decided to have the contract
rescinded invoking article 400 of the
civil code(Art 494).
Mariano vs Ca  Petitioner also alleged that the
defendants have already lost their
Facts of the case: right to redemption
 Gosiengfiao is an owner of a
residential lot located in tuguegarao Issue: should a co owner redeems a
Cagayan . property with her own funds becomes the
 The lot was then later on mortgaged sole owner and at the same time
to the rural bank of tuguegarao. extinguished co ownership
When he died the remaining heirs
inherited the intestate consisting of Whether or not the right to redeem is lost
the 3rd party defendants wife when there’s no written notice
Antonia and Children Amparo, Rationale: Nope
Carlos, Severino and also the  Redemption of the whole property
petitioners Grace, Emma, Ester, by a co owner does not grant him
Francisco, Jr., Norma, Lina thhe sole ownership over the
(represented by daughter Pinky property but will inure to the benefit
Rose), and Jacinto. of all co ownership. It does not put
 the unpaid loan was forclosed by the an existing state of co ownership as
mortgagee bank and the same land the same is not a mode of
as given to the same bank, being the extinguishment of co-ownership
highest bidder  Furthermore, as regards with the
 Amparo Ibarra then redeemed the second issue, the right is not lost by
property from the mortgagee bank lack of written notice because in one
and later sold the entire property to of the jurisprudence cited it was
Defendant Mariano which he built a opined that if the intention of the
residence of the lot subject to the law includes verbal notice or any
case which he later on sold to his other means of information is
children. sufficient. In addition to that it is
 Grace Gosiengfo learned about the quite clear that a notice in wiritng is
sale and confronted Leonardo a requisite to exercise the right of
mariano to present her claim to the legal redemption in ordered for the
said property. 30 day period to run.
 Grace then filed a complaint for
recovery of possession and legal COST AGAINST PETITIONER
redemption with damages against
defendants Leonardo and Avelina
Mariano, alleging that that as a co
owner, she has the right to recover
the respective shares in the said
property and the right to
redemption as regards to the shares
of the co owners
VERDAD VS CA owner is still entitled to a written
Facts of the case: notice from a selling a co owner in
 Verad purchased a residential lot order to remove the uncertainties
somewhere in the butuan city. about the sale, it’s terms and
 Private respondent then seeks to conditions as well as its efficacy and
exercise the right of legal status.
redemption and by doing so traces COST AGAINST THE PETITIONER
her title to her mother in law,
Macaria.
 Macaria had 2 marriages with the
recent one being canuto rosales. She
left heirs from her 1st and 2nd
marriages one was David rosales
who was the husband of Socorro
rosales.
 Ramon burdeos(macarias son to the
1st husband) sold to Verdad the Lot.
 Socorro later on discovered the sale
she then initiated an action for legal
redemption.

Issue: Whether Socorro has the right to

legal redemption

Whether or not Socorro right has already

prescribed

Rationale: Yes, No
 As regards to the first issue, though
it is true that she is not an intestate
heir, she became rightful to claim
due to the fact that she’s the legal of
heir of her husband whose estate is
his share from hhis mothers
inheritance.
 As regards to the 2nd issue, the
answer is no, the 30 period shall
only commence from the time a
written notice has been given to the
respondent as the notice was a
mandatory requirement. The court
further opined regardless whether a
co owner has the knowledge, a co
 AGUILAR VS CA who shall indemnify the others it
FACTS OF THE CASE shall be then sold and the proceeds
Characters: be divided equally.
Virgilio (petitioner)  Applies to first; when the property
Senen ( Respondent cannot be subdivided as it might
 Verdad and Senen were brothers prejudice the right of other co
who purchased a house and lot owners
somewhere in Paranaque for their  Co owners cannot decide as who
father. In the initial agreement, V among them shall be given the
and S agreed that they share in the entire property upon proper
co ownership with 2 3rd to Verdad reimbursement of the co owners.
and 1 3rd to Senan and later on the 2
agreed upon that their interests in COST AGAINST PETITIONER
the lot should be equal.
 Senen assumes the remaining
mortgage obl from the orig owners
with SSS, the brothers later on
agreed that a deed of sale be
executed and the title be temporary
under the name of S.
 When their father died, Vernan
demanded Senan to leave the house
so that the property can be sold and
the proceeds can be divided but the
respondent refused to do so.
 Petitioner then filed an action to
compel the sale of thhe house

Issue:
Does V has the right to demand for his
partition despite S refusal as a co owner .?

Rationale: Yes
 Article 494 provides that No CO
OWNER shall be obliged to remain in
thhe co owner ship and that each of
thhe co owner may demand for
partition corresponding to their own
shares.
 In Relation to that rule it was also
noted that whenever the thing is
indivisible and co owners cannot
agree that it be given to one of them
VDA. DE APE VS COURT OF APPEALS conveyance has been made by one
of the co owner and when another
Facts: co owner has demanded the same.
 Cleopas ape was an owner of a  Once the proeperty has been
parcel of land in negros. When he subdivided and distribute among the
died the property was passed to his co owners, the community or co
wife and their eleven children ownership ceases to exist thus there
Fortunato, Cornelio, Bernalda, be no reason to exercise such right.
Bienvenido, Encarnacion, Loreta,  Although it is to be noted that the
Lourdes, Felicidad, Adela, property was informally divided by
Dominador, and Angelina, all means of oral agreement, it is
surnamed Ape. binding between the parties. And all
 Lumayno (Respondent) and of the heirs in fact took possession
fortunato entered a contract of sale of their respective parts by HANTAL
over the share of Fortuno in the lot HANTAL
inherited from the father for 5k as
evidenced by a receipt of the
downpayment consisting of 30
pesos
 Prior to the sale, Fortunato and
lumayno executed a contract of
lease lasting to 5 years whith an
option to extend the contract with
another 5 years with an annula lease
0f 100 pessos on installment basis
 Fortunato and petitioner assailed
that private respondent and her
husband continued possession of
the whole property asserting that In
the event of the acquisition of the
shares of fortunatos co owners by
sale, he’s invoking his right to
redeem the same.

Issue: Whether or not Perpetua Ape can still

exercise the right of redemption of the civil
code considering the said property has been
divided among it’s co owners

Rationale: No
 Pet could no longer invoke her right
to redeem from respondent because
it applies to situation where co
ownership exist at the time the
HALILI VS CA

FACTS:
 When American Simeon De Guzman,
his real properties were given to his
forced heirs Helen
Guzman(DEFENDANT) and her son
David guzman. Helen then
transferred all her rights to her son
Rey and also the 6 parcel of land
which the 2 inherited from simeon
 1 of the parcel was the subject of
the case. David Rey Guzman sold the
land to Catanaig which is also a
defendant to this case.
 Petitioners, owners of adjoining lot,
filed a complaint questioning the
validity and also claiming ownership
based on their right of legal
redemption under art 1621

Issue: Is the subject land Urban? Can 1621

be invoked

Rationale:
 Yes the land was urban,almost all
roadsides along the national
highway are lined up with
residential and commercial or
industrial establishem although the
land was coined agricultural when it
was given to helen guzman, it was
termed as commercial when
transferred to Catanaig. The LRB
confirmed that the property was
commercial and the development
along te road is also commercial.
 Furthermore 1621 cannot be
invoked because it only applies
when the land sought to be
redeemed and the adjacent lot
belonging to the perfon exercising
right of redemption, is rural.
 Francisco vs Boiser given by the seller who is a co
owner and not by the buyer the
Facts: court further stated that the seller is
 Petitioner Adalia Francisco in the best position to know who are
together with her 3 sisters: his co owners that must be notified.
Ester, Elzabeth and Adeluisa And also it removes all doubts as to
were co owners of four the fact of the sale
parcels or registered land on  In addition to that, the sale between
which the ten blas and vendee could not be
commandments building registered and is none binding and
stands. They then sold 1/5 og to prevent delay on the petitioners
their undivided share to their right to assert redemption, Scc
mother Adela blas making considered the summons of the
Blas a co owner up to the earlier civil case filed as an actual
shares she had bought. knowledge giving the pet the right
 Blas, without the knowledge to redemption within 30 days from
of the owners, sold her 1/5 the finality of the decision.
share to Zenaida, a sister of  In the present case, The summons
the petitioner. on the civil case august 5 1992 was
 Respondents demanded her the time which redemption
share in the rentals collected commenced to run, but on august
by the petitioner from the 12 she deposited 10k. the petioner
tenants of the building. is correct/
 Petitioner then informed
defendants that she will be COST AGAINST RESPONDENT
exercising her right of
redemption as co owner. But
the complaint was dismissed
as defendant was not suited.

Issue:
 Whether the letter of respondent to
petitioner regarding the sale
between her and adela of the 1’5
share suffice the requirement of art
1623 of legal redemption.

Ruling:
 Though the rtc and ca said yes it is
sufficient, the Supreme court ruled
otherwise.
 Sc cited a jurisprudence which
opined that The notice should be
 had bought from estefanio in which
CARVAJAL VS CA respondent claimed they had
bought it from evaristo.
Facts:  While article 493 of the new civil
 A complaint for ejectment and code provides the full ownership of
recovery of 1/5 portion of parcel of his part. He has no right to sell a part
land ,which was inherited by the 5 of a property just because his right
Espique children from their father, of the thing is represented by an
filed by the private respondent abstract or ideal portion without
spouses against petitioner who is physical adjudication. Prior to a
the current occupant. judicial decree of partition, all co
 According to the respondent that owners has is an ideal abstract
the land was bought from evarista, quota of their.
while petitioner asserts that he have  In this case the fact the sale
bought the same from Estefanio. executed by Evaristo in favor of
 The sales were made while a respondent and sale executed by
petition of partition was still estefanio in favor of pet. were made
pending from the court.. the lower before a partition does not anull the
courts were in favor of the sales. The interests hough should be
respondents. limited onl to parts that might
 However SC reversed the deciscions assigned to estefanio and evaristo
 Resp has no right to eject pet until a
Issue: court decree the share of eahch is
Whether the respondent really is the bound my metes. Neither can claim
lawful owners by the judgement of the what they had bought is the part in
lower courts. dispute.

Rationale: Nope

 Unless there is a partition of the

estate judicialy or extrajudicially or
by court order. A co heir cannot
validly claim title to a specific
portion of the estate and sell it. A
title of an estate is not automatically
pass to an heir by mere death of the
original owner and the disposition of
a co heir is limited to the portion
given to him.
 the subject land was souther portion
of thhe lot which inherited by
Espique children which pet claims he
PAMPLONA VS MORETO
Facts of the case:
 Flaviano moreto and monica were
husband and wife. During their
marriage they managed to acquire
adjacent lots situated in calamba
laguna.
 The spouses bore to 6 children
Ursulo, Marta, La Paz, Alipio, Pablo,
and Leandro, all surnamed Moreto.
 When ursulo, marta, la paz, alipio
and Pablo died leaving their heirs
herein the plaintiffs.
 6 years after the death of his wife,
flaviano without the consent of the
heirs of Monica, and before any
liquidation of conjugal partnership,
executed a deed of sale in favor of
Geminiano Pamplona married to
Apolonia. as a result of lot having
acquired during marriage, the first
tct was cancelled and a new tct was
issued to Pamplona married to his
wife.
 The spouses then constructed a
house followed by their son who
also constructed a house on the
same lot. Interestingly the lot 1945
is infact a part of 1946
 When flaviano died, the defendants
demanded the petitioners to vacate
the land contending that Moreno
does not have the right as the land
acquired belongs to conjugal
partnership and that the sale was
made without the consent of the
heirs of the dead wife. However
petitioners refused to vacate
 Hence the case on hand

Issue:
Ramirez vs Ramirez
Facts:
 Plaintif Jose Ramirez filed an action
against Rita Ramirez Et
al(defendants) for the partition of a
parcel of land located in Sta. Cruz
manila. 1/6th to the plaintiff and
5/6th to the defendants.
 Manuel uy and sons expressed its
conformity to the partition stating
that if the same can be done
without great prejudice to the
interests of the parties. Defendant
Butte agreed and other defendants
objected the physical partition of
the property believing that the
partition will greatly injure the other
co owners.
Issue:
Whether physical partition is possible in
this case

Rationale: Yes
 Because no evidence has been
provided to show that such partition
will prejudice the other co owners.
Althoughit is an assumption that a
real estate suitable for commercial
purposes will likely suffer a
proportionatly great decrease in
value when its area becomes small.
But since the plaintiff share of
260.26 sq be sepreated from the
property in question there were still
remaining 1k plus for the defendant
so the court hahs thereason to
believe that such partition will not
impair nor prejudice the other co
owners of the subject property//