TÍTULO II - PROCEDIMIENTO
SECCIÓN 3: Plan de Pago Docof
share to GA. GA then proposed to the
remaining two the subdivision of the property and its sale to the public; both assented. The terms of the contract provided that the co-ownership should subsist until all of the subdivided lots have been sold.
One of the Tuason siblings decided that she wanted out of the co-ownership and filed a complaint for partition. The lower court dismissed the complaint.
In her appeal, she raised the issue of: ISSUE: Whether the terms of the contract requiring co-ownership until the sale of all the lots is contrary to the Civil Code provision
prohibiting co-owners from being obliged to remain part of the community.
HELD: The contract is perfectly valid. The contract is, in fact, designed for the ultimate end of terminating the co-ownership. At the time of the appeal, already 97.5% of the subdivision had been sold, and for a handsome profit as well.
The co-owners being forced to remain in the co-ownership should be taken to be a means to an end of disposing the lots and
terminating the co-ownership.
Q: What it the lots aren’t sold within ten years? Could there be an indirect violation of Article 494?
No, by agreeing to subdivide, develop, and sell the property, the parties actually entered into an agreement for partition.
Clear repudiation is required for prescription to run against co-owners.
Santos v. Santos
Eliseo and Ladislao Santos, brothers, inherited from their sister and father, parcels of land. Eliseo claims that Ladislao executed a Combined Deed of Partition whereby the latter conveyed the entire property to the former.
When Ladislao sued for reconveyance or partition, Eliseo set up the defense of the Combined Deed of Partition and acquisitive prescription.
ISSUE: Whether Ladislao has a cause of action.
HELD: Yes, the co-ownership subsists. Eliseo failed to present the deed upon which his claim is based. The claim of subsisting ownership must be refuted by the best evidence obtainable.
The issue more important is prescription:
Did Eliseo acquire Ladislao’s share through prescription?
No. Prescription of an action to recover from an implied trust requires clear repudiation by the possessor of the object of the co- ownership. In this case, there was no such repudiation.
Though Eliseo’s son remained on the property belonging to Ladislao, this can be considered as being assented to by the latter since the
son of Eliseo had been occupying the property even before the death of the testators.
Article 495. Notwithstanding the
provisions of the preceding article, the co- owners cannot demand a physical
division of the thing owned in common, when to do so would render it
unserviceable for the use for which it is intended. But the co-ownership may be
terminated in accordance with Article 498.
Article 496. Partition may be made by
agreement between the parties or by judicial proceedings. Partition shall be governed by the Rules of Court insofar as they are consistent with this Code. What are the classifications of partition? As to CAUSE: 1. extrajudicial or conventional 2. judicial As to PERMANENCE: 1. provisional or temporary 2. permanent As to SUBJECT MATTER: 1. real property 2. personal property
As to FORMS AND SOLEMNITIES: 1. partition by judicial decree
2. partition registered in the Registry of Property
3. partition in a private instrument 4. partition in a public instrument 5. oral partition
What law governs partition? a. The Civil Code
b. Suppletorily, the Rules of Court.
What must a person seeking partition do? He must set forth in his complaint the (1) description of the real estate, the (2) nature and extent of his title, and he must (3) join all those with an interest in the property as defendants.
What must the court do if it finds that plaintiff has a right to demand partition?
It shall order partition of the property.
The parties may partition the property among themselves.
What if the parties fail to agree on the partition?
The court will appoint not more than 3 disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, commanding them to allocate to the parties a part of the property as the court shall order.
Partition may be oral or written; in a private or public document.
Pada Kilario v. CA, Pada During Jacinto’s lifetime, he allowed his brother, the father of petitioner herein, to occupy a portion of his property.
When Jacinto died, his heirs executed an extrajudicial partition in a private document. They asked petitioner to leave the property; she refused. An action for ejectment was filed.
Petitioner claims that the partition was invalid for being in a private document and that the portion she is occupying was subsequently donated to her by a number of the heirs of Jacinto.
ISSUE: Whether the extrajudicial partition in a private document is valid.
HELD: Yes, the partition is valid. A partition may be in a public or private document or even oral.
Since the partition was valid, the conveyance to petitioner is invalid because those who made the conveyance were no longer owners of the property conveyed.
Where a co-owned property is titled in the name of one co-owner and there is no indication on the certificate/s of title of co-ownership, a third person may rely on the face of the title in his purchase of the said property.
Cruz v. Leis
Getrudes Leis obtained a loan from Cruz; this was secured by a REM on the subject
property. She failed to pay and the property was foreclosed.
Her heirs now claim that the property was conjugal, having been acquired during the marriage of their parents. Being so, upon the death of their father, they became owners of one half of the property.
Cruz claims that the property is paraphernal, the certificate/s of title indicating that Gertrudes is a widow and the title is in her name. Cruz also argues that when Gertrudes redeemed the property after a previous mortgage, it became hers alone. ISSUE: Whether the mortgage of the property was valid.
HELD: Yes, the mortgage was valid.
Though as a rule, a co-owner can dispose or encumber only his share of the co-ownership, in this case, the certificate/s of title indicated Gertrudes as the absolute owner of the property.
A person dealing with registered land is not required to go beyond the certificate/s of title to determine the condition of the property.
Where several properties were orally partitioned but one was inadvertently left out of the court order approving the partition, the oral partition shall be given effect.
Maestrado v. CA
Ramon Chavez died, leaving several heirs. An oral partition was conducted and the same was approved by the court.
Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador received lot 3046.
Josefa and Carmen received 4 lots, including the property in dispute, lot 5872.
However, 5872 was not included in the court’s order approving the partition. To set things straight, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors) executed quitclaims confirming the existence of the oral partition.
Subsequently, Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors) requested for the partition of 5872 and the distribution of their respective shares.
Petitioners, Josefa and Carmen filed an action for quieting of title.
ISSUE: Whether private respondents,
Concepcion, Angel, Amparo, and Salvador (or their successors), have a right to the
property.
HELD: They have no right.
The property was ceded to petitioners upon the execution of the oral partition which they themselves confirmed in their quitclaims.
Article 497. The creditors or assignees of
the co-owners may take part in the division of the thing owned in common and object to its being effected without their
concurrence.
But they cannot impugn any partition already executed, unless there has been fraud, or in case it was made notwithstanding a formal opposition presented to prevent it, without prejudice to the right of the debtor or assignor to maintain its validity. *May creditors or assignees impugn a partition already executed?
Generally they may NOT, except: 1. Where there has been fraud; 2. Where a formal opposition has been
previously presented.
Is a mortgage sufficient security against fraud?
Yes.
Who are the creditors referred to in this article?
All creditors who became so during the existence of the co-ownership.
In case a co-owner sells his share, who participates in the partition, the vendor or the vendee?
It depends. If the vendee is already in
possession, then he alone may participate. If, however, after the share is sold, the vendor retains a real right over it, both he and the vendee may participate.