CASE DIGEST: Quijano v. Amante

 

FE QUIJANO, petitioner, vs. ATTY. DARYLL A. AMANTE, respondent
G.R. No. 64277            |          October 8, 2014

FACTS:

Petitioners and her siblings inherited from their father a parcel of land with an area of 15,790 sq m more or less. On April 23, 1990, prior to any partition among the heirs, Eliseo sold a portion of his share to respondent Atty. Daryll A. Amante.

On July 25, 1991, Eliseo, sickly and in need of money, sold an additional 1/3 portion of his share in the property to the respondent, with their deed of absolute sale stating that the sale was with the approval of Eliseo’s siblings, and describing the portion subject of the sale as right at the back of the seminary facing Japer Memorial School and where the fence and house of Atty. Amante is located.

On Sept. 30, 1992, Fe, Eliseo, Jose and Gloria executed a deed of extrajudicial partition to divide their father’s estate among themselves. The partition resulted in the portions earlier sold by Eliseo to the respondent being adjudicated to the petitioner instead of to Eliseo.

Due to the petitioner’s needing her portion that was then occupied by the respondent, she demanded that the latter vacate it. Despite several demands, the respondent refused to vacate, prompting her to file against him on February 14, 1995 a complaint for ejectment and damages. She alleged therein that she was the registered owner of the parcel of land covered by TCT No. 6555, a portion of which was being occupied by the respondent, who had constructed a residential building thereon by the mere tolerance of Eliseo when the property she and her siblings had inherited from their father had not yet been subdivided, and was thus still co-owned by them; and that the respondent’s occupation had become illegal following his refusal to vacate despite repeated demands.

The respondent denied that his possession of the disputed portion had been by mere tolerance of Eliseo. He even asserted that he was in fact the owner and lawful possessor of the property, having bought it from Eliseo; that the petitioner and her siblings could not deny knowing about the sale in his favor because they could plainly see his house from the road; and that the deed of absolute sale itself stated that the sale to him was with their approval, and that they had already known that his house and fence were existing; that before he purchased the property, Eliseo informed him that he and his coheirs had already orally partitioned the estate of their father, and that the portion being sold to him was Eliseo’s share; and that with his having already purchased the property before the petitioner acquired it under the deed of extrajudicial partition, she should respect his ownership and possession of it.

ISSUE:

Who has the better right to the possession of the disputed property

RULING:

The disputed property originally formed part of the estate of the late Bibiano Quijano, and passed on to his heirs by operation of law upon his death. Prior to the partition, the estate was owned in common by the heirs, subject to the payment of the debts of the deceased. In a co-ownership, the undivided thing or right belong to different persons, with each of them holding the property pro indiviso and exercising her rights over the whole property. Each co-owner may use and enjoy the property with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners. The underlying rationale is that until a division is actually made, the respective share of each cannot be determined, and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership of the pro indiviso property, in addition to his use and enjoyment of it.

Even if an heir’s right in the estate of the decedent has not yet been fully settled and partitioned and is thus merely inchoate, Article 493 of the Civil Code gives the heir the right to exercise acts of ownership. Accordingly, when Eliseo sold the disputed property to the respondent in 1990 and 1991, he was only a co-owner along with his siblings, and could sell only that portion that would be allotted to him upon the termination of the co-ownership. The sale did not vest ownership of the disputed property in the respondent but transferred only the seller’s pro indiviso share to him, consequently making him, as the buyer, a co-owner of the disputed property until it is partitioned.

As Eliseo’s successor-in-interest or assignee, the respondent was vested with the right under Article 497 of the Civil Code to take part in the partition of the estate and to challenge the partition undertaken without his consent.

For sure, the respondent was no stranger to the Quijanos, because he himself had served as the lawyer of Eliseo and the petitioner herself. His knowledge of Eliseo’s co-ownership with his coheirs, and of their oral agreement of partition notwithstanding, the respondent still did not exercise his right under Article 497. Although Eliseo made it appear to the respondent that the partition had already been completed and finalized, the coheirs had not taken possession yet of their respective shares to signify that they had ratified their agreement, if any.