The document discusses a case regarding the sale of portions of inherited property by one heir, Laurencia, to a third party before the property was formally partitioned among the heirs. The court ruled that Laurencia could validly sell her hereditary rights to a portion of the property, but that there was no specific portion that could be identified and sold until after partition. It also discussed that a deed signed by Laurencia and another heir expressing their intent to divide and sell portions of the property was a valid partition between them.
The document discusses a case regarding the sale of portions of inherited property by one heir, Laurencia, to a third party before the property was formally partitioned among the heirs. The court ruled that Laurencia could validly sell her hereditary rights to a portion of the property, but that there was no specific portion that could be identified and sold until after partition. It also discussed that a deed signed by Laurencia and another heir expressing their intent to divide and sell portions of the property was a valid partition between them.
The document discusses a case regarding the sale of portions of inherited property by one heir, Laurencia, to a third party before the property was formally partitioned among the heirs. The court ruled that Laurencia could validly sell her hereditary rights to a portion of the property, but that there was no specific portion that could be identified and sold until after partition. It also discussed that a deed signed by Laurencia and another heir expressing their intent to divide and sell portions of the property was a valid partition between them.
The document discusses a case regarding the sale of portions of inherited property by one heir, Laurencia, to a third party before the property was formally partitioned among the heirs. The court ruled that Laurencia could validly sell her hereditary rights to a portion of the property, but that there was no specific portion that could be identified and sold until after partition. It also discussed that a deed signed by Laurencia and another heir expressing their intent to divide and sell portions of the property was a valid partition between them.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 2
MAURICIA ALEJANDRINO VS.
COURT OF APPEAL G.R. No., 114151. September 17, 1998
Facts:
In this case a 219 square meter lot identified as Lot No. 2798 located in Mambaling, Cebu City was left by late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and EnricaLabunos to their six children, wherein each of them is entitled to a share of 36.50 square meters. Later on, a buyer, LicerioNique, purchased portions of the property from three of the six children, namely Laurencia, Gregorio and Abundio, with a total area of 121.67 square meters of the Alejandrino property.
However, an action for quieting of title and damages against Nique was filed by Laurencia who questioned the sale, when in fact she is the alleged seller to Nique of most of the property. The RTC rendered in favor of Nique wherein the Court declared him as the owner in fee simple of the share of Laurencia, Marcelino, Gregorio, and Abundio of the parcel of land in Lot. 2798.
Despite such Court decision, Laurencia appealed but later on withdrew. Instead, the other sibling, Mauricia, who is the petitioner in this case, filed a complaint for redemption and recovery of properties with damages against Nique.
Subsequently, on the basis of the declared decision of the trial court which was in favor of Nique, he filed a motion for the segregation of the 146 square meter portion of the property and was granted by the court. Due to such decision, Mauricia then questioned the order of the court through a petition for certiorari and prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction filed before the Court of Appeals but was dismissed. Mauricia filed a motion for reconsideration but the Court of Appeals denied it for lack of merit. Hence, the instant petition for review on certiorari.
Issue: Whether or not, as an heir of the Alejandrino property, Laurencia may validly sell specific portions thereof to a third party.
Ruling:
Laurencia may validly sell portions of her hereditary rights of her pro indiviso share in the lot to a third party. However, since the property was not yet divided or partitioned, there can be no specific portion of the property that could be identified and alienated through sale.
Under 493 of the Civil Code, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of ownership over such inchoate right of the property. He has the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits thereto, which extends to alienation or mortgage of the property, but shall only be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon termination of the co-ownership.
Further, under Article 1078 of the Civil Code provides that where there are two or more heirs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased. The underlying principle of this provision is that before division of the property, the co-owners have the right to the use and enjoyment of the property due to joint ownership but, there is no specific determination of the of each co-owner’s respective share until partition is made.
Moreover, Laurencia’s execution of the deed of extra-judicial settlement together with Mauricia expressedtheir intention to terminate the co-ownership by physically dividing the property and selling shares to Nique. Taking into consideration that they have acquired the shares of their other siblings thus, it shows that only the two of them who needs to settle the estate.
Under Art. 1082 of the civil code, it provides that every act which is intended to put an end to indivision among co-heirs and legatees or devisees is deemed to be a partition, although it should purport to be a sale, an exchange, a compromise, or any other transaction. The fact that the document was not notarized does not make it less effective as regards the two of them. The partition is of inherited property need not be embodied in a public document.
Therefore, the trial court did not act in abuse of its discretion in issuing the order for the segregation of the property. The court only reiterated the intent of the partition that was executed by Laurencia and Mauricia that was embodied in the deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate.
32 Soc - Sec.rep - Ser. 276, Unempl - Ins.rep. CCH 15889a Marilyn Finkelstein v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary of Health and Human Services, 924 F.2d 483, 3rd Cir. (1991)
