Ramirez vs. Bautista

A co-owner may validly alienate his pro indiviso share in common property, and such alienation is effective only as to the share that would be awarded to him upon partition; the sale is void, however, as to the share of a co-owner who did not participate in or authorize the conveyance.

Moises Ramirez died intestate in February 1900, having been married twice: first to Apolinaria Guillermo, by whom he had five children (Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia), and second to Alejandra Capistrano, by whom he had three children (Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio). Both wives were deceased, as were Cirila and Serapio, leaving Isabel—then about eight years old—as the sole surviving child of the second marriage. At the time of his death, Moises left two fish ponds in the sitio of Tagalag, municipality of Polo, Province of Bulacan, which he had acquired during his first marriage on March 17, 1895, by title of composition with the Spanish Government. The administrator of Moises's intestate estate brought suit to recover the fish ponds from the purchasers to whom the five first-marriage children had sold them, on the ground that Isabel, as a co-owner, had not participated in the sale.

Moises Ramirez died intestate in February 1900. He had been married twice. By his first wife, Apolinaria Guillermo, he had five children: Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia. By his second wife, Alejandra Capistrano, he had three children: Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio. Both wives predeceased him, as did Cirila and Serapio, leaving Isabel—then about eight years old—as the sole surviving child of the second marriage.

During his first marriage, on March 17, 1895, Moises acquired two fish ponds in the sitio of Tagalag, municipality of Polo, Province of Bulacan, by virtue of a title of composition with the Spanish Government. These fish ponds were conjugal partnership property of Moises and Apolinaria. Upon Apolinaria's death, one-half of the fish ponds belonged to Moises and the other half passed to their five children as heirs of their mother. The property remained undivided between father and children, forming a community of property.

Upon Moises's death, his one-half share was inherited by all eight children—five from the first marriage and three from the second—each entitled to an equal portion. When Cirila and Serapio died, their respective shares passed to Isabel as their sole heir, she being their full sister. This resulted in the five first-marriage children collectively owning thirteen-sixteenths of the fish ponds (eight-sixteenths inherited from their mother plus five-sixteenths from their father), and Isabel owning three-sixteenths.

On November 28, 1901, the five children of the first marriage—Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia—sold the two fish ponds to Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran for 1,100 pesos. Isabel was not a party to the sale. The purchasers proved their purchase through two documents, one private and one notarial. When summoned to answer the complaint, the purchasers requested that the vendors also be cited, but the vendors, though summoned, did not appear at trial.

The administrator of Moises Ramirez's intestate estate, Mauricio Ramirez, brought the action to have the sale declared null and void and to secure recovery of the fish ponds and damages. The Court of First Instance of Bulacan held the entire sale null and void, ordered restitution of the fish ponds to the administrator, and awarded 200 pesos per annum as damages from the date the defendants were notified of the complaint, reserving to the defendants their right of action against the vendors. The defendants appealed, assigning four errors, principally that the sale of their thirteen-sixteenths share should have been declared valid and that only the three-sixteenths belonging to Isabel should have been declared void.

• Validity of Sale of Co-owners' Shares: Whether the sale by the five children of the first marriage of their thirteen-sixteenths share in the two fish ponds was valid, notwithstanding that no partition had been made of the estate of Moises Ramirez.
• Nullity of Sale of Non-participating Co-owner's Share: Whether the sale of the three-sixteenths share belonging to Isabel Ramirez, who did not participate in the sale, was null and void.
• Capacity of the Administrator to Sue: Whether the administrator of the intestate estate of Moises Ramirez had legal capacity to bring the action for recovery of the fish ponds.
• Right to Recovery and Restitution: Whether the administrator was entitled to recovery of possession and restitution of the entire fish ponds to the intestate estate.

• Validity of Sale of Co-owners' Shares: Yes. The sale of the thirteen-sixteenths belonging to the five first-marriage children was valid, because under Article 399 of the Civil Code every co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate it, the effect of the alienation being limited to the share that would be awarded to him upon partition.
• Nullity of Sale of Non-participating Co-owner's Share: Yes, the sale of the three-sixteenths belonging to Isabel was null and void, as she neither personally nor through another participated in the sale, and the vendors had no authority to dispose of her share.
• Capacity of the Administrator to Sue: Not addressed as a bar to the action. The Court did not sustain the appellants' assignment of error on this point, proceeding to decide the case on the merits.
• Right to Recovery and Restitution: No. The administrator could not recover the entire fish ponds, because the defendants were legitimate proprietors and possessors in joint ownership of the greater portion (thirteen-sixteenths) of the common property; only the three-sixteenths belonging to Isabel could be the subject of recovery.

• Validity of Sale of Co-owners' Shares: The fish ponds were acquired by Moises Ramirez during his first marriage to Apolinaria Guillermo on March 17, 1895, and thus belonged to the conjugal partnership under Article 1401, paragraph 1, of the Civil Code. Upon dissolution of the marriage by the death of Apolinaria, one-half belonged to Moises and the other half to their five children as heirs of their mother (Article 1392, Article 931). The property remained undivided, creating a community of property between father and children (Article 392). Upon Moises's death, his one-half share passed to all eight children, each receiving an equal portion; the death of Cirila and Serapio caused their shares to pass to Isabel as their sole heir (Article 947). The five first-marriage children thus owned thirteen-sixteenths. Under Article 399 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, with the effect of the alienation limited to the share that would be awarded to him upon dissolution of the community. Because the five children could lawfully alienate their respective shares, the sale of thirteen-sixteenths was valid, and the purchasers were subrogated to the vendors in the joint ownership of that portion.

• Nullity of Sale of Non-participating Co-owner's Share: The three-sixteenths share belonged exclusively to Isabel Ramirez, who neither personally nor through representation participated in the sale. The vendors had no authority to convey her share, and accordingly the sale of the three-sixteenths was null and void. The Court affirmed this portion of the lower court's judgment.

• Capacity of the Administrator to Sue: The appellants assigned as error that the plaintiff had no legal capacity to bring suit. The Court did not sustain this assignment, proceeding instead to resolve the case on the substantive merits of co-ownership and the validity of the sale.

• Right to Recovery and Restitution: The administrator's cause of action was limited to recovery of the two fish ponds and restitution of possession to the intestate estate. Because the defendants were the legitimate proprietors of thirteen-sixteenths of the common property, neither recovery of the whole nor restitution could be granted. Only Isabel's three-sixteenths could be recovered. The Court noted that upon a future division of the common property between the purchasers and Isabel, the fruits, rents, benefits, expenses, and rights of the respective co-owners could be accounted for, as well as the purchasers' rights against the vendors who did not appear in the proceedings.

• Co-ownership and Alienation of Pro Indiviso Shares — Under Article 399 of the Civil Code, every co-owner has full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. The effect of the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the co-owners, is limited to the share that may be awarded to the alienating co-owner upon partition. The Court applied this doctrine to hold that the five first-marriage children validly sold their thirteen-sixteenths share, but could not validly convey Isabel's three-sixteenths.

• Community of Property Among Heirs — When two or more heirs appear at the opening of a testamentary succession or during the settlement of an intestate estate, and each is an owner pro indiviso of the inheritance by reason of the share he is entitled to receive, a community of property exists between them as long as the estate remains undivided. The Court relied on Manresa's commentary (3 Manresa, 357) to establish that this community arises at the moment the co-heirs assume the entire representation of the deceased with respect to all of his property, rights, and actions.

• Conjugal Partnership Property and Succession — Property acquired during marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership (Article 1401, paragraph 1). Upon dissolution by the death of either spouse, the property is divided equally between the surviving spouse and the estate of the deceased (Article 1392). The deceased spouse's half passes to the children as heirs (Article 931), and upon the surviving spouse's death, his or her half passes to all heirs of both marriages. The Court traced the fractional shares through two successive deaths to arrive at the thirteen-sixteenths and three-sixteenths allocation.

• "Every coowner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and he therefore may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the coowners, shall be limited to the share which may be awarded him in the division on the dissolution of the community." — This is the Court's quotation of Article 399 of the Civil Code, the controlling provision that establishes the right of a co-owner to alienate his pro indiviso share and defines the limits of that alienation's effect.

• "If Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia Ramirez could lawfully alienate their respective shares in the joint ownership of the two parcels of land sold to the defendants, Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran, it is evident that the sale of thirteen-sixteenths of the said two lands could not be void; the sale of the three-sixteenths which belonged to Isabel alone is illegal, as alleged in the third assignment of error." — This passage states the ratio decidendi: the sale is valid as to the co-owners' own shares but void as to the share of the non-participating co-owner.

• "Intestate succession can not disturb the lawful holder in his possession of property, which it is thought should constitute a part of the hereditary property." — This principle explains why the administrator could not recover the entire fish ponds: the purchasers, as lawful holders of thirteen-sixteenths, could not be dispossessed by the intestate succession.

• Article 1401, paragraph 1, Civil Code — Provides that property acquired by purchase during marriage belongs to the conjugal partnership. Applied to classify the two fish ponds, acquired by Moises Ramirez during his first marriage, as conjugal partnership property.
• Article 1392, Civil Code — Governs dissolution of the conjugal partnership by the death of either spouse, resulting in equal division of partnership property between the surviving spouse and the heirs of the deceased. Applied upon the death of Apolinaria Guillermo to allocate one-half of the fish ponds to Moises and one-half to their five children.
• Article 931, Civil Code — Establishes the right of children as lawful heirs to inherit from their mother. Applied to pass Apolinaria's one-half share to the five children of the first marriage.
• Article 392, Civil Code — Recognizes the community of property that arises when conjugal partnership property remains undivided between the surviving spouse and the children after dissolution. Applied to characterize the ongoing joint dominion between Moises and his five children.
• Article 947, Civil Code — Governs succession among siblings of the full blood. Applied when Cirila and Serapio died, causing their shares to pass to Isabel as their sole full-blood heir.
• Article 399, Civil Code — Grants each co-owner full ownership of his part and the right to alienate, assign, or mortgage it, with the effect limited to the share awarded upon partition. The controlling provision for determining the validity of the sale of the thirteen-sixteenths and the nullity of the sale of the three-sixteenths.

Torres, Mapa, Johnson, Carson, and Moreland, JJ., concurred.