G.R. No. 84908 December 4, 1989
SPOUSES FELIX ABAD and ELENA R. ABAD, petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and SPOUSES NEAL DAYAP and PROFETIZA M. DAYAP, respondents.

FACTS

Petitioner Felix Abad, along with Herminigildo Aquino and two others, co-owned a parcel of land in Quezon City. To comply with PHHC rules, the sellers executed a Deed of Assignment solely in Aquino’s name. Aquino, however, executed an affidavit acknowledging the co-ownership and promising to execute separate deeds of sale for each co-owner’s share upon titling. When TCT No. 175968 was issued in Aquino’s name, he refused to honor the agreement. Abad filed an action (Civil Case Q-27582) to compel Aquino to execute a deed of sale for his designated portion, Lot B. The RTC ruled in Abad’s favor, ordering the execution of the deed and the issuance of a title in his name.
Subsequently, petitioners discovered that respondent spouses Dayap, who had purchased a portion of the same land from Aquino in 1972, were fencing Lot B. Petitioners then filed Civil Case Q-35941 for injunction. The Bureau of Lands confirmed the fence was on Lot B, the portion adjudicated to Abad. The RTC ruled for the Abads, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Dayaps, as buyers from the registered co-owner Aquino, had a better right.

ISSUE

Whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that the Dayap spouses have a better right to the specific portion (Lot B) than petitioner Felix Abad, a co-owner.

RULING

Yes. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the RTC decision. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of co-ownership and the principle of prior tempore, potior jure (first in time, stronger in right). A co-owner, like Aquino, owns an ideal, undivided share in the entire property, not a specific physical portion. Consequently, a sale by a co-owner of a specific part of the communal property is void. The Dayaps’ 1972 deed from Aquino purporting to sell a definite area was therefore invalid as to that specific portion. In contrast, Abad’s right is superior and prior. His claim is founded on the original co-ownership agreement evidenced by Aquino’s 1969 affidavit, his timely annotation of an adverse claim on the title, and most decisively, a final and executory judgment in Civil Case Q-27582 recognizing his exclusive right to Lot B. Possession by the Dayaps cannot defeat a title acquired by Abad through a final judgment. The Torrens title subsequently issued to the Abad spouses is conclusive evidence of their ownership. The Dayaps’ remedy lies in an action for breach of warranty against their vendor, Aquino.