BY ATTY. JULIUS GREGORY B. DELGADO
SPOUSES DOMICIANO AND ANSELMA HEREZO VS. ERNESTO MAQUILING, G.R. NO. 275978 (APRIL 23, 2025): A CO-OWNER’S UNDIVIDED INTEREST COULD PROPERLY BE THE OBJECT OF A CONTRACT OF SALE BETWEEN PARTIES
Ernesto Maquiling (“Ernesto”) purchased a portion (Lot No. 322-C with an area of 200 square meters) of Lot No. 322 with an area of 631 square meters covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 107 and originally owned by sisters, Teopista, Gerarda, and Marciana, all surnamed Herezo. Ernesto alleged that he obtained ownership of the subject property from Benigno Herezo (“Benigno”) through a Deed of Sale dated November 17, 2004. Benigno in turn acquire the subject property from Teopista on December 28, 1991.
The controversy began after the execution of the sale between Benigno and Ernesto and when the latter tried to occupy the subject property but was prevented by Spouses Domiciano and Anselma Herezo (“Spouses Herezo”). For their part, Spouses Herezo alleged that on January 19, 2000, Teopista, the only surviving owner, sold the whole of Lot No. 322 in favor of Domiciano for Php38,000.00, as evidenced by a notarized Declaration of Heirship with Deed of Absolute Sale. Thereafter, Domiciano supposedly took possession of the property, built building and other improvements within the premises, and paid the real estate taxes. However, due to financial constraints, Spouses Herezo supposedly were not able to facilitate formal transfer of title to their names.
Ernesto filed a Complaint for Recovery of Ownership and Possession on September 2, 2005. In a Decision dated December 28, 2015, the trial court ruled in favor of Ernesto ruling that the sale of the subject property by Teopista in favor of Benigno trumps the resale of the same property to Domiciano, the former deed being a public instrument. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s ruling on appeal. The appellate court held that Benigno was the first possessor in good faith in the double sale. It likewise upheld the validity of Teopista’s right to sell part of her undivided interest in the co-owned Lot No. 322, the entirety of which was eventually adjudicated upon her, having survived her co-owners who remained unmarried and without children.
Spouses Herezo filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court. Citing the case of Spouses Rol vs. Racho, G.R. No. 246096 (January 13, 2021), Spouses Herezo argued that the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property requires the consent of all co-owners; thus, Teopista could not have validly sold the subject property to Benigno, who in turn, could not have transferred the same to Ernesto. The Supreme Court held that in the case of Spouses Rol, what was nullified was only the extrajudicial partition of the co-owned property executed to the total exclusion of one of the co-heirs. The Court in the same case allowed co-owners to sell their pro-indiviso share in the co-owned property, provided that the portion sold shall not exceed the share that may be allotted to them upon partition.
The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals correctly upheld the validity of the sale between Teopista and Benigno. A co-owner’s undivided interest could properly be the object of a contract of sale between parties. The Court held that the vendee obtains the same rights as the vendor had as a co-owner and acquires a proportionate abstract share in the property held in common. In this case, Benigno, at the very least, acquired Teopista’s rights as a co-owner of Lot No. 322. Resultantly, the same was transferred to Ernesto when the sale was made in his favor on November 17, 2004.
The Supreme Court also held that while a definite portion of Lot No. 322 was conveyed to Benigno, it is undisputed that the subject property did not exceed the ideal shares held by Teopista in the co-ownership. Also, the Court noted that Teopista and her sisters made several conveyances regarding Lot No. 322 but none of the co-owners and buyers questioned Benigno when he started occupying and building improvements on the subject property in April of 1992. The Court held that Teopista’s clear intention to sell a part of her aliquot share in Lot No. 322 to Benigno, and the sale can be given effect to the full extent, absent any protest from the co-owners. Finally, the Court held that the fact that Teopista eventually adjudicated the whole of Lot No. 322 to herself, having survived her co-owners and sisters who remained unmarried and without issue, renders the issue moot and academic.