Tabasondra vs. Spouses Constantino

A co-owner may alienate, assign, or mortgage his pro indiviso share in the common property even without the knowledge or consent of his co-owners, the effect of the alienation being limited to the portion that may be allotted to him upon the termination of the co-ownership. Consequently, the successors-in-interest of a non-selling co-owner cannot validly assail such an alienation, and partition and accounting may be ordered only with respect to the share that remained under the co-ownership.

Cornelio Tabasondra had two marriages — first to Severina and later to Sotera — and left children by both. His children by Severina were Tarcila Tabasondra-Constantino and Sebastian Tabasondra; his children by Sotera were the eight petitioners. Cornelio, together with his siblings Valentina and Valeriana Tabasondra, was a registered co-owner of three parcels of land in Dalayap, Tarlac City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106012 and containing a total area of 100,352 square meters, each of the three siblings holding a one-third interest therein.

Cornelio Tabasondra, who had been married twice, left children by both marriages. By his first wife, Severina, he had Tarcila Tabasondra-Constantino, who married Conrado Constantino, and Sebastian Tabasondra, who married Pacita Arellano. By his second wife, Sotera, he had Arsenio, Fernando, Cornelio, Jr., Mirasol, Fausta, Myrasol, Marlene, and Guillermo, all surnamed Tabasondra, who are the petitioners in this case. The respondents are Tarcila and her husband, the heirs of the late Sebastian, and Pacita.

Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana Tabasondra were siblings and the registered owners of three parcels of land located at Dalayap, Tarlac City, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 106012: Lot No. 2536, containing an area of 77,147 square meters; Lot No. 3155, with an area of 13,659 square meters; and Lot No. 3159, with an area of 9,546 square meters, or a total of 100,352 square meters. On August 18, 1982, Valentina and Valeriana executed a Deed of Absolute Sale whereby, for and in consideration of ₱10,000, they sold, ceded, transferred, and conveyed by way of absolute sale unto Sebastian and Tarcila, their heirs and assigns, "all our shares, rights, interests and participations" in the property, free from liens and encumbrances. The deed recited that the vendees were the actual tillers or tenants of the land and, as such, had the prior right of pre-emption and redemption under the Land Reform Code.

Valentina died single on August 19, 1990; Cornelio died on March 15, 1991; and Valeriana died single on August 4, 1998. All three died intestate and without partitioning the property covered by TCT No. 106012. Cornelio's descendants thereupon possessed and occupied the land.

On August 22, 2002, the petitioners filed a complaint for partition and accounting in the Regional Trial Court, alleging that the parcels of land were owned in common by them and the respondents but that the latter gave them no share in the fruits thereof, and that the respondents refused partition without valid reasons. They maintained that they had tried to amicably settle the dispute before the Lupon, but to no avail, and prayed that the land be partitioned, that new titles be issued in their respective names, that the respondents be ordered to render an accounting of the fruits, and that such fruits also be partitioned. In their Answer, the respondents averred that they did not object to a partition provided that it be made only with respect to Cornelio's share, contending that they already owned the shares of Valentina and Valeriana by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed in their favor on August 18, 1982. They alleged that it was the petitioners who should account for the profits of the property because it was the latter who enjoyed the fruits thereof, and by way of counterclaim prayed that the petitioners be ordered to render an accounting and to pay damages. After the issues were joined and the pre-trial conference was conducted, a full-blown trial followed in view of the parties' failure to settle amicably.

The RTC rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the partition of the three parcels of land covered by TCT No. 106012 among the compulsory and legal heirs of Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana, with Sotero Duenas Tabasondra entitled to 3,040 square meters and the plaintiffs and defendants entitled to 6,690 square meters each. On appeal, the CA held that the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by Valeriana and Valentina in favor of the respondents was not rebutted by the petitioners, and that the deed was prima facie evidence that a contract of sale was, indeed, entered into and consummated between Valeriana and Valentina as sellers and the respondents as vendees. It further found no dispute that the subject property was owned in common by the siblings Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana, each holding a share equivalent to 33,450.66 square meters.

• Grave Abuse of Discretion in Dismissing the Motion for Reconsideration: Petitioner argued that the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in summarily dismissing the new matters of substance raised in their motion for reconsideration.
• Failure to Resolve Substantive Issues: Petitioner maintained that in summarily dismissing the motion for reconsideration, the Court of Appeals reneged on its duty to resolve legal and factual issues of substance in a way not probably in accord with law or applicable decisions of the Supreme Court.
• Validity of the Deed of Sale: Petitioner contended that the Court of Appeals' declaration that the questioned Deed of Sale was valid, and its summary dismissal of the motion for reconsideration raising new arguments and matters of substance not raised in the appeal by the respondents, were contrary to law, jurisprudence, the admissions of fact and testimony of Tarcila Tabasondra as the only witness for the respondents, and the evidence presented by the petitioners at the trial.
• Exercise of Judicial Review: Petitioner asserted that the course of action taken by the Court of Appeals called for the exercise by the Supreme Court of its power of judicial review in order to afford complete relief to the parties and to avoid multiplicity of suits.

• Validity and Subsistence of the Deed of Absolute Sale: Respondent contended, as appellant before the Court of Appeals, that the trial court gravely erred in not considering and appreciating the fact that the Deed of Absolute Sale executed by the deceased Valentina Tabasondra and Valeriana Tabasondra in favor of Tarcila Tabasondra and Sebastian Tabasondra was valid and subsisting at the time the trial court considered it to have no valid legal force and effect.
• Absence of Legal Ground for Partition: Respondent argued that the trial court gravely erred in ordering the partition of the property in question without any legal and valid grounds.
• Limited Scope of Partition and Right to Accounting: Respondent averred in its Answer that it did not object to a partition provided that the same should be made only with respect to Cornelio's share, since it already owned the shares of Valentina and Valeriana by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale, and that it was the petitioners who should render an accounting of the profits because they were the ones enjoying the fruits of the property.

• Validity of the Alienation of Pro Indiviso Shares: Whether Valentina and Valeriana validly alienated their pro indiviso shares in the property covered by TCT No. 106012 in favor of Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner Cornelio.
• Scope of Partition and Accounting: Whether the Court of Appeals correctly ordered the partition and the accounting with respect to only 33,450.66 square meters of the property registered under TCT No. 106012.
• Segregation of Shares by Metes and Bounds: Whether the partition may be effected without a prior segregation of the property into determinate portions assigned to each co-owner by metes and bounds.

• Validity of the Alienation of Pro Indiviso Shares: Yes. Under Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has the full ownership of his part and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it even without the consent of the other co-owners, the effect of the alienation being limited to the portion that may be allotted to him upon the termination of the co-ownership.
• Scope of Partition and Accounting: Yes. Only Cornelio's one-third share, equivalent to 33,450.66 square meters, remained subject to partition and accounting, the shares of Valentina and Valeriana having been validly conveyed to the respondents.
• Segregation of Shares by Metes and Bounds: No. The Court of Appeals failed to segregate the property into determinate portions among the several co-owners as Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires, so that a remand to the court of origin is necessary.

• Validity of the Alienation of Pro Indiviso Shares: The total area of the three lots owned in common by Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana was 100,352 square meters, and each of the co-owners had the right to one-third of that total area. It was established that Valentina and Valeriana executed the Deed of Absolute Sale whereby they specifically disposed of their shares in the property registered under TCT No. 106012 in favor of Sebastian and Tarcila. Article 493 of the Civil Code provides that 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," but that "the effect of the alienation or the 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." The right of Valentina and Valeriana to alienate their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner Cornelio was upheld because the alienation covered the disposition of only their respective interests in the common property. Hence, the petitioners, as successors-in-interest of Cornelio, could not validly assail the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana of their shares in favor of the respondents. The Court expressly declared the disposition of the Court of Appeals to be correct and in full accord with law, particularly its findings that the genuineness and due execution of the Deed of Absolute Sale was not rebutted by the petitioners and that the deed was prima facie evidence that a contract of sale was entered into and consummated between Valentina and Valeriana as sellers and the respondents as vendees. The Court likewise cited the principle that although the right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right.

• Scope of Partition and Accounting: As a result of the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana in favor of Sebastian and Tarcila of their pro indiviso shares in the three lots, Sebastian and Tarcila became co-owners of the 100,352-square-meter property with Cornelio and, later, with the petitioners as Cornelio's successors-in-interest. In effect, Sebastian and Tarcila were co-owners of two-thirds of the property, each of them having a one-third pro indiviso share in the three lots, while the remaining one-third was co-owned by the heirs of Cornelio, namely, Sebastian, Tarcila, and the petitioners. Since the aggregate area of the subject property is 100,352 square meters, Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana each had a share equivalent to 33,450.66 square meters; when Valentina and Valeriana sold their shares, the respondents became co-owners with Cornelio, and upon Cornelio's death the only area that his heirs were entitled to and which could be made the subject of partition was the 33,450.66-square-meter portion. The RTC therefore erred in granting the complaint and ordering a partition without qualifying that it should not include the shares previously pertaining to Valentina and Valeriana. Because the petitioners had no right in the two-thirds portion validly alienated to Sebastian and Tarcila, the accounting of the fruits shall involve only the one-third portion of the property inherited from Cornelio, for which purpose the RTC shall apply Article 500 and Article 1087 of the Civil Code.

• Segregation of Shares by Metes and Bounds: This was a case for partition and accounting, and under Vda. de Daffon vs. Court of Appeals, an action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved; if the trial court should find after trial the existence of co-ownership among the parties, it may and should order the partition of the properties in the same action. Although the Court of Appeals correctly identified the co-owners of the three lots, it did not segregate the 100,352-square-meter property into determinate portions among the several co-owners. Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court requires that, if actual partition of property is made, the judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each party to the action in severalty the portion of the real estate assigned to him. Accordingly, there was a need to remand the case to the court of origin for the purpose of identifying and segregating, by metes and bounds, the specific portions of the three lots assigned to the co-owners and to effect the physical partition of the property in the following proportions: Tarcila, one-third; the heirs of Sebastian, one-third; and the petitioners (individually), along with Tarcila and the heirs of Sebastian (collectively), one-third. Upon remand, the RTC should comply with the express terms of Section 2, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, under which the parties may, if they are able to agree, make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, which the court shall confirm and which shall be recorded in the registry of deeds. Should the parties be unable to agree on the partition, the next step for the RTC will be to appoint not more than three competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, and to command such commissioners to set off to each party in interest the part and proportion of the property as directed in the decision.

• Alienation of a co-owner's pro indiviso share (Article 493, Civil Code) — 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; but the effect of the alienation or the 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. The Court applied the rule in upholding the sale by Valentina and Valeriana of their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner Cornelio, because the alienation covered only their respective interests in the common property.
• Inchoate right of a co-owner or heir over an undivided property — Although the right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has not been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right, including the right to alienate his pro indiviso share. The Court adopted this principle, drawn from the reproduced discussion in Alejandrino vs. CA, in sustaining the validity of the 1982 Deed of Absolute Sale.
• Action for partition as an action for declaration of co-ownership — An action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved. If the trial court should find after trial the existence of co-ownership among the parties, it may and should order the partition of the properties in the same action. The Court relied on this doctrine in holding that the RTC and the CA should have proceeded to segregate the property among the co-owners in the same proceeding.
• Partition by metes and bounds; commissioners when the parties fail to agree — Under Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court, if actual partition of property is made, the judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each party the portion assigned to him in severalty. Under Section 2, Rule 69, the parties may first agree on the partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, which the court shall confirm; under Section 3, Rule 69, if the parties are unable to agree, the court shall appoint not more than three competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition. The Court found that neither the RTC nor the CA complied with these requirements, necessitating a remand.
• Accounting among co-owners and co-heirs upon partition — Under Article 500 of the Civil Code, upon partition there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made, and each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. Under Article 1087, in the partition the co-heirs shall reimburse one another for the income and fruits which each one of them may have received from any property of the estate, for any useful and necessary expenses made upon such property, and for any damage thereto through malice or neglect. Because the petitioners had no right in the two-thirds portion validly alienated to Sebastian and Tarcila, the Court limited the accounting of the fruits to the one-third portion of the property inherited from Cornelio.

• "We uphold the right of Valentina and Valeriana to thereby alienate their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner Cornelio because the alienation covered the disposition of only their respective interests in the common property." — This is the ratio decidendi on the central issue: it states the Court's direct holding that a co-owner's power of alienation under Article 493 of the Civil Code is not defeated by the absence of consent from the other co-owners.
• "Hence, the petitioners as the successors-in-interest of Cornelio could not validly assail the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana of their shares in favor of the respondents." — This passage fixes the procedural and substantive consequence of the ruling: the non-selling co-owner's successors are barred from impugning the sale, which in turn narrows the property subject to partition and accounting.
• "According to Vda. de Daffon v. Court of Appeals, an action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved." — This is the canonical formulation of the nature of a partition suit, cited by the Court to justify ordering the segregation of the co-owners' shares within the same action rather than in a separate proceeding.
• "Accordingly, there is a need to remand the case to the court of origin for the purpose of identifying and segregating, by metes and bounds, the specific portions of the three lots assigned to the co-owners, and to effect the physical partition of the property in the following proportions: Tarcila, one-third; the heirs of Sebastian, one-third; and the petitioners (individually), along with Tarcila and the heirs of Sebastian (collectively), one-third." — This passage states the operative directive of the decision and the exact proportions in which the property is to be partitioned, making it the practical guide for the proceedings on remand.

• Torres vs. Lapinid, G.R. No. 187987, November 26, 2014, 742 SCRA 646, 652 — Cited by the Court as authority for the holding that the petitioners, as successors-in-interest of Cornelio, could not validly assail the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana of their shares in favor of the respondents.
• Vda. de Daffon vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 129017, August 20, 2002, 387 SCRA 427, 433-434 — Cited for the rule that an action for partition is at once an action for declaration of co-ownership and for segregation and conveyance of a determinate portion of the properties involved, and that the trial court may and should order partition in the same action upon finding co-ownership.
• Alejandrino vs. CA — Quoted in the disposition of the Court of Appeals as reproduced in the decision, for the principle that although the right of an heir over the property of the decedent is inchoate until the estate is fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right, including the alienation of his pro indiviso share.

• Article 493, Civil Code — Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved; the effect of the alienation or mortgage with respect to the co-owners is limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership. This was the principal provision applied: it validated the sale by Valentina and Valeriana of their pro indiviso shares without Cornelio's knowledge or consent and confined the effect of that sale to the shares ultimately allotted to them.
• Article 1088, Civil Code — Should any of the heirs sell his hereditary rights to a stranger before the partition, any or all of the co-heirs may be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale, provided they do so within one month from the time they were notified in writing of the sale by the vendor. The provision was quoted in the excerpt from Alejandrino vs. CA reproduced in the decision as the rule specifically governing the alienation of a pro indiviso portion of property shared in common by virtue of inheritance; it was not the basis of the disposition in this case.
• Article 500, Civil Code — Upon partition, there shall be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made, and each co-owner shall pay for damages caused by reason of his negligence or fraud. The Court directed the RTC to apply this provision in the accounting, which was limited to the fruits of the one-third portion still under co-ownership.
• Article 1087, Civil Code — In the partition, the co-heirs shall reimburse one another for the income and fruits which each one of them may have received from any property of the estate, for any useful and necessary expenses made upon such property, and for any damage thereto through malice or neglect. This provision was likewise made applicable to the accounting on remand.
• Section 11, Rule 69, Rules of Court — If actual partition of property is made, the judgment shall state definitely, by metes and bounds and adequate description, the particular portion of the real estate assigned to each party, and the effect of the judgment shall be to vest in each party to the action in severalty the portion of the real estate assigned to him. The Court found that both the RTC and the CA failed to comply with this requirement, which necessitated the remand.
• Section 2, Rule 69, Rules of Court — If after trial the court finds that the plaintiff has the right thereto, it shall order the partition of the real estate among all the parties in interest; the parties may, if they are able to agree, make the partition among themselves by proper instruments of conveyance, which the court shall confirm and which shall be recorded in the registry of deeds. The Court directed the RTC to comply with this provision upon remand.
• Section 3, Rule 69, Rules of Court — If the parties are unable to agree upon the partition, the court shall appoint not more than three competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to set off to the plaintiff and to each party in interest such part and proportion of the property as the court shall direct. The Court identified this as the next step for the RTC should the parties fail to agree on the partition.

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-De Castro, Perlas-Bernabe, and Caguioa, JJ., concur.