A. O, owner of a residential house and lot in Sta.

a. Mesa obtained a loan from Banco De Oro in the amount of P10 Million
Pesos. As security for the loan, he mortgage his property to BDO. Before he could pay of his loan, he died leaving 3
children namely Miley, his daughter by his first marriage and Ariana & Taylor, by his second deceased wife. The bank
foreclosed the loan and at the public auction was the lone buyer. A Certificate of Sale was issued in favor of the bank
and the sale was registered at the Registry of Deeds. Ariana became financially successful and bought the property from
the bank and build thereafter a low rise condominium building. Later Miley and Taylor also became successful and sued
Ariana for partition and to make an accounting so that they can reimburse Ariana the amount she paid corresponding
to their share in the co-ownership. If you were counsel of Ariana, what will be your defense?

Answer: The general rule is that the redemption by one co-heir or co-owner of the property in its totality does not vest
in him ownership over it since redemption is not a mode of terminating a co-ownership. A redemption by a co-owner
within the period prescribed by law inures to the benefit of all the other co-owners. In such a situation, therefore, the
redemption made by one co-owner will simply entitle him to collect reimbursement from the remaining co-owners
pursuant to the provisions of Article 488 considering that redemption entails a necessary expense.

However, in this case the co-owners have allowed the redemption period to expire without redeeming their former
property and permitted the consolidation of ownership and the issuance of a new title in favor of the bank. By their
knowing acts of omission, the heirs in this case allowed the extinction of their coownership. Ownership, therefore,
passed to BDO and there was no more co-ownership among the heirs. When Ariana bought the property, the co-
ownership was terminated prior to such sale and therefore, Miley and Taylor cannot anymore claim for their aliquot
portions since none existed any longer.

B. Liza and Nadine are sisters. In 1980, they inherited a farm lot from their parents in the total area of 4 hectares, more or
less. Liza was a nurse, who migrated to the States and stayed therein for 30 years. In the meantime, Nadine was left in the
province to tend to the farm benefiting from the harvest of the rice and corn therefrom without giving anything to Liza, who
did not mind as she, Liza, was earning dollars. In year 2005, Nadine, unknown to Liza, sold ½ portion of the property to
James. In 2010, Liza came back to the Philippines and having discovered the sale of ½ portion of the land demanded from
Nadine to turn over to her, her ½ portion. Nadine resisted claiming that she had already acquired exclusive ownership over
the property by virtue of extra-ordinary prescription of 30 years. Who is correct and why?
Answer: Liza is correct. While a co-owner has the right to alienate or mortgage his undivided share, the effect of such
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. In other words, what the transferee obtains by virtue of such alienation
or mortgage are the same rights as the transferor had as a co-owner, in an ideal share equivalent to the consideration given
under their transaction. In essence, the transferee merely steps into the shoes of the transferor as co-owner and acquires a
proportionate share in the property held in common, thereby making the transferee a co-owner of the property. In other
words, such sale will only transfer the rights of said co-owner to the buyer, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the
property. By selling half of the property, such sale will only affect Nadine’s share and not Liza’s who did not consent or even
knew of the sale when it was effected.
Moreover, Nadine’s contention is unmeritorious. For Article 494 of the Civil Code explicitly declares: “No prescription shall
lie in favor of a co-owner or co-heir so long as he expressly or impliedly recognizes the co-ownership.” The only exception is
a clear and prior repudiation of co-ownership by the one claiming prescription over the property. In order that the title may
prescribe in favor of a co-owner229 or in order that a co-owner’s possession may be deemed adverse to the other co-
owners,230 the following elements must concur: The co-owner has performed unequivocal acts of repudiation amounting
to an ouster of the other co-owners, Such positive acts of repudiation have been made known to the other co-owners, The
evidence thereof is clear and convincing. None of these requisites had been complied with to warrant Nadine’s claim. Thus,
prescription against her co-owner Liza will not lie.
B. Hypothetical case application on Quieting of Title
A. What are the two indispensable requirements for an action to quiet title or to remove cloud upon a title to
prosper?
Answer:
(1) the plaintiff or complainant has a legal or an equitable title to or interest in the real property subject of
action, and
 (2) the deed, claim, encumbrance or proceeding claimed to be casting cloud on his title must be shown to
be in fact invalid or inoperative despite its prima facie appearance of validity or legal efficacy.

(a) May an action to quiet title be a proper remedy for a claim of accretion over alluvion deposited on one’s land?

Answer: It depends on two scenarios:

Landowner files an action against possessors and/or registered owners of accretion or alluvion which, by law, is actually
owned by him., in this case, the remedy is an action for reconveyance. However, in a situation where the landowner already filed
an action to quiet title, although both actions are distinct from each other, SC, time and again allowed the treatment or
characterization of an action for reconveyance as an action to quiet title for higher and nobler purpose of avoiding multiplicity of
suits and prevention of litigation.
Thus, in a scenario where a landowner, for example, institutes a special civil action for quieting of title, because of the existence
of a certificate of title over accretion or alluvion, which on its face is valid, but which is in truth and in fact, invalid and prejudicial
to his legal or equitable title as riparian owner, he may seek the declaration of nullity of such title, and in the same case, seek
settlement of the boundary dispute between him and the registered owner, and even the reconveyance of the title to his name.

C. Under the civil code provisions on co-ownership, the share of the co-owners is called ideal share while under the
condominium law, the term used by the law is common interests? Is there a difference? Defend your answer in ONLY
5 short sentences.

Answer: Yes, there is. Ideal share on co-ownership- A co-owner has absolute ownership of his undivided share in the
common property. Article 493 of the New Civil Code spells out his rights over his pro indiviso share. Pursuant to said
article, a coowner shall have full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto. He has the right
to alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even to substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights
are involved. As a consequence, a co-owner has the right to alienate his pro indiviso share in the co-owned property
even without the consent of the other co-owners and his co-owners cannot enjoin him if he intends to alienate his
share to a third party. He may also validly lease his undivided interest to a third party independently of the other co-
owners.

On the other hand, common interest under condominium law pertains only to the share in the common areas. So in
cases of alterations for example, the law requires the consent of all co-owners to the making of the alteration on the
thing owned in common. This rule shall apply even though benefi ts for all would result from such act of alteration. In
case, however, any of the co-owners should unreasonably withholds his consent and the same is clearly prejudicial to
the common interest, the other co-owners may go to court for appropriate relief.