Paulmitan vs. Court of Appeals

Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, a co-owner’s sale of the entire property without the consent of the other co-owners is not void but transfers only the seller’s undivided share, and the purchaser becomes a co-owner; redemption of the entire co-owned property by one co-owner does not vest exclusive ownership but merely entitles the redeemer to reimbursement for the proportionate shares of the other co-owners, together with a lien until payment.

Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died intestate in 1953, leaving two parcels of land in Negros Occidental. She was survived by her two sons, Donato Paulmitan and Pascual Paulmitan. Pascual died later the same year, leaving seven children. The estate remained unpartitioned. Donato subsequently adjudicated one lot to himself and sold the other to his daughter Juliana, who also redeemed it from a tax sale. The children of Pascual sued for partition, leading to questions on the effect of a co-owner’s sale and of a co-owner’s redemption on the existing co-ownership.

• Estate and Heirs: Agatona Sagario Paulmitan died intestate in 1953, survived by her two legitimate sons, Donato Paulmitan (petitioner) and Pascual Paulmitan. Pascual died later in the same year, leaving seven children: respondents Alicio, Elena, Abelino, Anita, Baking, Adelina, and Anito, all surnamed Paulmitan. Petitioner Juliana P. Fanesa is Donato’s daughter, married to petitioner Rodolfo Fanesa. The estate remained unsettled.
• The Two Parcels: The decedent left Lot No. 757 (1,946 sqm, OCT No. RO-8376) and Lot No. 1091 (69,080 sqm, OCT No. RO-11653), both in Negros Occidental and still registered in her name.
• Extrajudicial Adjudication of Lot No. 757: In 1963, Donato executed an Affidavit of Declaration of Heirship claiming to be the sole heir, adjudicated Lot No. 757 to himself, and obtained TCT No. 35979 in his name. This lot was later dismissed from the case on prescription and is not at issue.
• Sale of Lot No. 1091: On May 28, 1974, Donato executed a Deed of Sale covering the entire Lot No. 1091 in favor of his daughter Juliana P. Fanesa.
• Tax Forfeiture and Redemption: In 1952, Lot No. 1091 had been forfeited and sold at public auction to the Provincial Government of Negros Occidental for non-payment of taxes. On May 29, 1974, Juliana redeemed the property from the Provincial Government for P2,959.09.
• Complaint and Prescription Defense: Upon learning of the transactions, respondents filed a complaint for partition and damages on January 18, 1975. Petitioners raised prescription as an affirmative defense concerning Lot No. 757; the trial court dismissed that cause of action, a ruling that became final.
• Trial on Lot No. 1091: The trial court found respondents, as Pascual’s heirs, entitled to an undivided one-half share of Lot No. 1091. It ruled Donato’s sale to Juliana transferred only his undivided share and that Juliana’s redemption gave her a right to reimbursement but not exclusive ownership. The court ordered partition, accounting of fruits at P5,000.00 per year from 1966, and mutual reimbursements. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

• Exclusive Ownership by Sale: Petitioners maintained that the Deed of Sale executed by Donato in favor of Juliana transferred full ownership of the entire Lot No. 1091 to her, because Donato, as the declared sole surviving heir, could validly dispose of the whole property.
• Exclusive Ownership by Redemption: Juliana P. Fanesa argued that her redemption of the land from the Provincial Government after tax forfeiture vested in her absolute ownership of the entire lot, effectively extinguishing any alleged co-ownership and barring respondents’ claim.
• Amount of Fruits: Petitioners assailed the trial court’s award of P5,000.00 per year as respondents’ share in the produce of the land, asserting the land was actually leased for only P2,000.00 per year and that the finding was erroneous.

• Co-ownership and Limited Effect of Sale: Respondents countered that they, as Pascual’s children, inherited his undivided one-half share in Lot No. 1091 upon his death and thus became co-owners with Donato. Consequently, Donato’s sale to Juliana could only transfer his own undivided share and did not affect their rights.
• Redemption did not Vest Title: Respondents argued that Juliana’s act of redemption merely preserved the property for the co-ownership and entitled her only to reimbursement of the redemption price from the co-owners, without conferring sole ownership.
• Right to Accounting and Partition: Respondents sought partition and an accounting of fruits from the property, which the trial court granted.

• Effect of Sale by Co-owner: Whether the sale by Donato Paulmitan of the whole Lot No. 1091 to his daughter Juliana transferred ownership of the entire property or only his undivided share, in light of the co-ownership existing with respondents.
• Effect of Redemption by Co-owner: Whether Juliana P. Fanesa’s redemption of Lot No. 1091 from the Provincial Government after tax forfeiture operated to vest in her exclusive title over the land, thereby terminating the co-ownership.
• Reviewability of Factual Finding on Fruits: Whether the petitioners could validly contest the trial court’s determination of the annual produce of the land in a petition for review on certiorari.

• Effect of Sale by Co-owner: Donato’s sale to Juliana transferred only his undivided one-half share. Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, a co-owner may alienate his part, but the alienation’s effect is limited to the portion allotted to him upon partition. The sale of the entire property by one co-owner without consent of the others is not null and void; it merely conveys the seller’s undivided share and substitutes the buyer as a co-owner. Juliana thus became a co-owner with respondents.
• Effect of Redemption by Co-owner: The redemption by Juliana did not vest exclusive ownership. A co-owner may redeem only his own share (Civil Code, Art. 1612). Even if she redeemed the entire property, the act preserved the state of co-ownership without terminating it. The redeeming co-owner is entitled to demand contribution from the other co-owners for their proportionate share of the redemption expense, and holds a lien on the property until reimbursed. The property remained co-owned.
• Reviewability of Factual Finding on Fruits: The dispute over the amount of P5,000.00 per year raised a purely factual issue. In a petition for review on certiorari, only questions of law may be raised. The concurrent factual findings of the trial court and the Court of Appeals are final and conclusive, precluding review.

• Transmission of Succession Rights at Moment of Death — Under Article 777 of the Civil Code, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent. Thus, upon Agatona’s death, Donato and Pascual automatically acquired ownership of their respective shares; Pascual’s subsequent death transmitted his undivided share to his own children, the respondents, making them co-owners with Donato.
• Co-ownership Before Partition — Where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate is owned in common by them before partition (Art. 1078, Civil Code). Without partition, Donato and Pascual were co-owners, and after Pascual’s death, respondents stepped into his place as co-owners.
• Effect of Alienation by a Co-owner (Art. 493, Civil Code) — Each co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate it. However, the alienation, with respect to the co-owners, is limited to the portion allotted to the grantor upon termination of the co-ownership. A sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the others is not void; it transfers only the seller’s undivided share, and the purchaser becomes a co-owner.
• Redemption by a Co-owner does not Terminate Co-ownership — A co-owner who redeems the entire property from a tax forfeiture does not acquire exclusive title. The redemption preserves the existing co-ownership and merely confers upon the redeemer a right to reimbursement from the other co-owners for their respective shares of the redemption price, coupled with a lien on the property until paid.
• Scope of Review in Petition for Review on Certiorari — Only questions of law may be raised. Findings of fact of the trial court, especially when affirmed by the Court of Appeals, are generally final and not subject to review.

• “The rights of a co-owner of a certain property are clearly specified in Article 493 of the Civil Code … ‘Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part … and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it … But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership.’ … even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale.” — This passage from Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals was quoted to underscore that the buyer steps into the seller’s shoes as a co-owner.
• “The right of repurchase may be exercised by co-owner with respect to his share alone … While the records show that petitioner redeemed the property in its entirety, shouldering the expenses therefor, that did not make him the owner of all of it. In other words, it did not put to end the existing state of co-ownership.” — This excerpt from Adille v. Court of Appeals encapsulates the rule that redemption by one co-owner does not confer exclusive ownership.

• Bailon-Casilao v. Court of Appeals, 160 SCRA 738 (1988) — Followed: applied the rule under Article 493 that a co-owner’s sale of the whole property transfers only the seller’s undivided share and makes the buyer a co-owner.
• Adille v. Court of Appeals, 157 SCRA 455 (1988) — Followed: held that redemption of the entire property by one co-owner does not terminate the co-ownership but entitles the redeemer to reimbursement.
• Punsalan v. Boon Liat, 44 Phil. 320 (1923) — Cited as early authority that a sale by a co-owner of the entire property affects only his share.
• Guinto v. Lim Bonfing, 48 Phil. 884 (1926) — Cited for the rule that a redeeming co-owner holds a lien on the property until reimbursed.

• Article 493, Civil Code — Defines the limits of a co-owner’s power of alienation: the transfer is confined to the portion allotted upon partition. Applied to hold that Donato’s sale transferred only his one-half undivided share.
• Article 1078, Civil Code — Before partition, the whole estate of the decedent is owned in common by the heirs. Applied to establish the co-ownership between Donato and Pascual.
• Article 777, Civil Code — The rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent. Applied to determine that Pascual acquired his share at Agatona’s death and transmitted it to his children upon his own death.
• Article 962, Civil Code — The relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones. Noted to explain that Donato and Pascual excluded their children from inheriting directly from Agatona.
• Article 488, Civil Code — Each co-owner may compel others to contribute to preservation expenses and taxes; a redeeming co-owner may demand reimbursement. Applied to affirm Juliana’s right to reimbursement with a lien.
• Articles 1612, 1613, and 1607, Civil Code — A co-owner may redeem only his own share; partial redemption cannot be compelled, but redemption of the whole by one does not vest absolute ownership in the redeemer. Applied to reject claim of exclusive ownership.

Gutierrez, Jr., Bidin, Davide, Jr., Romero, and Melo, JJ.