Torres, Jr. vs. Lapinid

A co-owner may validly sell his undivided share in co-owned property to a third party without the consent of the other co-owners, and such sale is effective to transfer the seller’s proportionate abstract interest to the buyer, who thereby becomes a co-owner in substitution of the seller. Even where the sale purports to convey a specific physical portion of the property prior to partition, the transaction is not void ab initio but operates to transfer only the seller’s ideal share equivalent to the consideration given, pursuant to the principle that contracts must be recognized as far as legally possible (quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest).

Vicente Torres, Jr., Carlos Velez, and Mariano Velez (petitioners) and Jesus Velez (respondent) are co-owners of several parcels of land in Carcar, Cebu, including Lot No. 4389 with an area of 19,018 square meters. In 1993, Jesus initiated a partition case against the other co-owners. Prior to the resolution of that case, Jesus acquired additional shares from other co-owners, consolidating his ownership to 73% of Lot No. 4389. On 9 November 1997, Jesus executed a deed of sale conveying 3,000 square meters of Lot No. 4389 to Lorenzo Lapinid (respondent), who took possession of a portion thereof. In 2001, the partition case was resolved through a compromise agreement authorizing Jesus, Mariano, and Vicente to sell the properties and distribute the proceeds, later amended to exclude Jesus as an authorized seller.

• Co-ownership and Prior Litigation: Vicente Torres, Jr., Carlos Velez, and Mariano Velez (petitioners) and Jesus Velez (respondent) are co-owners of Lot No. 4389 (19,018 sqm) in Cogon, Carcar, Cebu, along with other parcels. In 1993, Jesus filed a partition case against the petitioners and other co-owners before the RTC of Cebu City.
• Consolidation of Shares: Prior to the partition, Jesus acquired shares from other co-owners in 1985, 1990, and 2004, consolidating his ownership to 73% of Lot No. 4389.
• The 1997 Motion and Sale: On 6 November 1997, the co-owners signed a motion agreeing that Lot No. 4389 be adjudicated to Jesus's group. On 9 November 1997, Jesus executed a deed of sale conveying 3,000 square meters to Lorenzo Lapinid (respondent), who subsequently occupied a portion of the lot.
• The 2001 Compromise: On 13 August 2001, the partition case was resolved via a compromise judgment authorizing Jesus, Mariano, and Vicente to sell the properties covered by TCT Nos. 25796, 25797, and 25798 and distribute the proceeds. The agreement was later amended to exclude Jesus as an authorized seller.
• Discovery and Forcible Entry: Petitioners discovered Lapinid's occupation during an inspection and filed a forcible entry case, which the Municipal Trial Court dismissed, finding the buyers (including Lapinid) to be in good faith.
• Instant Complaint: On 4 February 2006, petitioners filed a complaint for nullity of the deed of sale, arguing that Jesus sold a definite portion without notice to co-owners, rendering the sale void. They sought recovery of possession, rental fees of ₱1,000.00 per month from January 2004, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses.
• Defenses: Jesus claimed the 2001 compromise pertained only to other lots, not Lot No. 4389, which had been adjudicated to him. Lapinid asserted he purchased based on Jesus's proof of majority ownership and that the deed did not specify boundaries, with his occupation conditioned on the partition result.

• Nullity of Sale for Lack of Notice: Petitioners maintained that the sale of a definite portion of co-owned property without notice to the other co-owners is without force and effect, rendering the deed of sale null and void.
• Binding Effect of Compromise: Petitioners argued that Lapinid, as successor-in-interest of Jesus, is bound by the 2001 judgment based on compromise, which required that the properties be sold jointly by Jesus, Mariano, and Vicente with proceeds distributed to all co-owners.
• Entitlement to Rentals and Damages: Petitioners claimed entitlement to rental payments from Lapinid from January 2004, as well as attorney's fees and litigation expenses, contending that Jesus's act of selling forced them to litigate to protect their interests.

• Validity of Sale of Undivided Share: Jesus countered that as a majority co-owner (73%) of Lot No. 4389, he had the right to sell his proportionate share without notice to other co-owners. He argued that the 1997 motion adjudicated the lot to his group, making notice unnecessary.
• Scope of Compromise Agreement: Jesus maintained that the 2001 compromise agreement applied only to the remaining parcels of land (TCT Nos. 25796-25798) and excluded Lot No. 4389, which was already subject to the 1997 adjudication.
• Good Faith of Buyer: Lapinid argued that the sale was valid because Jesus showed proof of majority ownership. He denied acquiring a specific definite portion, noting the deed lacked boundary descriptions, and asserted he occupied the land only conditionally pending partition.
• Co-owner's Rights: Respondents contended that Lapinid, having purchased Jesus's share, became a co-owner with the right to use the property without paying rentals to the other co-owners.

• Validity of Sale by Co-owner: Whether a co-owner may validly sell a portion of co-owned property to a third party without notice to the other co-owners.
• Effect of Sale of Concrete Portion: Whether the sale of a definite or concrete portion of co-owned property prior to partition affects the validity of the transaction.
• Effect of Subsequent Compromise: Whether the 2001 compromise agreement affects the rights of Lapinid as transferee who acquired his share in 1997.
• Liability for Rentals: Whether Lapinid, as transferee of a co-owner's share, is liable for rental payments to the other co-owners.
• Award of Attorney's Fees: Whether petitioners are entitled to attorney's fees and litigation expenses.

• Validity of Sale by Co-owner: A co-owner may validly alienate his undivided and pro indiviso share in co-owned property without the consent of the other co-owners. Pursuant to Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has full ownership of his part and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, with the effect limited to the portion allotted to him upon termination of the co-ownership. The transferee steps into the shoes of the transferor as co-owner of an ideal and proportionate share.
• Effect of Sale of Concrete Portion: Even assuming the sale purported to convey a concrete or definite portion prior to partition, the transaction is not void ab initio. Following Spouses Del Campo v. Court of Appeals and Lopez v. Vda. De Cuaycong, the vendee acquires the same rights as the vendor had as co-owner, in an ideal share equivalent to the consideration given. The principle quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest applies, sustaining the contract to the extent legally possible.
• Effect of Subsequent Compromise: The 2001 compromise agreement cannot defeat the rights of Lapinid, who became a co-owner on 9 November 1997 upon the perfection of the sale. As the transfer occurred prior to the compromise, the agreement is valid only as it does not affect the proportionate share of the non-consenting party (Lapinid). Under the maxim nemo dat quod non habet, the petitioners cannot sell Lapinid's share absent his consent.
• Liability for Rentals: Lapinid is not liable for rental payments. As a co-owner from the date of sale, he is vested with the right to use and enjoy the property held in common pursuant to Articles 486 and 493 of the Civil Code. A co-owner exercises joint ownership over the pro indiviso property and may use it according to its purpose without injuring the interests of the co-ownership; such use does not constitute leasehold requiring payment of rent.
• Award of Attorney's Fees: Attorney's fees and litigation expenses were properly denied. Article 2208 of the Civil Code enumerates specific instances for such awards, none of which obtain here. While petitioners filed based on a perceived cause of action, they failed to consider that Jesus acted within his legal rights as a co-owner; thus, the action was not clearly unfounded nor did Jesus act in gross and evident bad faith.

• Right of Co-owner to Alienate Share (Article 493, Civil Code): Each co-owner has the full ownership of his undivided part and may alienate, assign, or mortgage it, substituting another person in its enjoyment. The effect of such alienation is limited to the portion which may be allotted to the grantor upon partition. The transferee acquires the grantor's ideal and proportionate share, stepping into his shoes as co-owner.
• Sale of Concrete Portion Before Partition: A sale purporting to convey a specific physical portion of co-owned property prior to partition is not void. The vendee acquires the vendor's undivided interest in an ideal share equivalent to the consideration given. The contract is sustained under the maxim quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest (when a thing is of no force as I do it, it shall have as much force as it can have).
• Effect of Prior Sale on Subsequent Compromise: A compromise agreement among co-owners cannot affect the rights of a third-party transferee who acquired ownership of a share prior to the execution of the compromise. The principle nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what he does not have) applies; co-owners cannot convey the share of a non-consenting co-owner.
• Rights of Co-owners to Use Property (Articles 486 and 493, Civil Code): Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common in accordance with its purpose and in such manner as not to injure the interest of the co-ownership or prevent other co-owners from using it according to their rights. Until division is made, each co-owner exercises joint ownership over the whole and may not be required to pay rent for his use of the property.

• "A co-owner has an absolute ownership of his undivided and pro indiviso share in the co-owned property."
• "The vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor as co-owner and acquires a proportionate abstract share in the property held in common."
• "Quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest." (When a thing is of no force as I do it, it shall have as much force as it can have.)
• "Nemo dat quod non habet – 'no one can give what he does not have.'"
• "From the foregoing, it is absurd to rule that Lapinid, who is already a co-owner, be ordered to pay rental payments to his other co-owners."

• Spouses Del Campo v. Court of Appeals, 403 Phil. 706 (2001): Controlling precedent establishing that a vendee of a concrete portion of co-owned property acquires the vendor's ideal share equivalent to the consideration given.
• Lopez v. Vda. De Cuaycong, 74 Phil. 601 (1944): Applied for the maxim quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest regarding sales of concrete portions of co-owned property.
• Aguilar v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 76351, 29 October 1993, 227 SCRA 472: Cited for the principle that co-owners exercise joint ownership over the whole property until partition.
• City of Mandaluyong v. Aguilar, 403 Phil. 404 (2001): Cited for the definition of a co-owner's absolute ownership over his undivided share.
• Acabal v. Acabal, 494 Phil. 528 (2005): Cited for the rule that a sale by a co-owner affects only his share and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in partition.

• Article 493, Civil Code: Defines the rights of co-owners to alienate their undivided shares.
• Article 486, Civil Code: Governs the use of co-owned property by co-owners.
• Article 2208, Civil Code: Enumerates the instances when attorney's fees and expenses of litigation may be awarded.

Maria Lourdes P.A. Sereno (Chief Justice, Chairperson), Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, Martin S. Villarama, Jr.