G.R. No. 160994 ; July 27, 2006
WILFREDO and SWARNIE AROMIN, petitioners, vs. PAULO FLORESCA, VICTOR FLORESCA, JUANITO FLORESCA and LILIA FLORESCA-ROXAS, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves a dispute over Cadastral Lot No. 4894, an unregistered land. Petitioners Wilfredo and Swarnie Aromin purchased several portions of the lot from respondent Paulo Floresca through a series of unregistered deeds of sale executed between 1990 and 1992. Paulo’s siblings, the other respondents, intervened, claiming the property was owned in common by Paulo, his deceased brother Alberto, and their sister Josefa. They had previously filed an action for partition (Civil Case No. 832-BG) against Paulo, which resulted in a final and executory compromise judgment declaring Paulo as owner of one-half of the lot and the siblings (as Alberto’s heirs) as owners of the other half. The Aromins subsequently filed actions for specific performance against Paulo and for quieting of title against all respondents, arguing the compromise judgment did not bind them as non-parties. The siblings, in turn, filed an action for annulment of the sales.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the sales of specific portions of the unregistered, co-owned property by Paulo Floresca to the Aromins are valid and binding against his co-owners, the other Floresca siblings.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the Aromins’ petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, ruling the sales were invalid as to the shares of the co-owners. The legal logic rests on the nature of co-ownership and the rules governing partition. Until actual partition, each co-owner owns an undivided interest over the whole property, not any specific portion. Consequently, a sale by one co-owner of a specific, segregated part of the common property, without the consent of the others, is invalid. The Court applied the principle “Nemo dat quod non habet” (one cannot give what one does not have). Paulo could only sell his undivided interest. By selling specific metes and bounds, he effectively performed a virtual partition without his co-owners’ consent, which is prohibited. The final compromise judgment in the partition case, which became final before the Aromins’ actions, legally established the respective shares of the co-owners. While the Aromins were not parties to that suit, the judgment determined the extent of Paulo’s alienable interest. Since the sales covered specific areas exceeding Paulo’s one-half share, they encroached upon the siblings’ portion and were thus invalid. The unregistered status of the land and the deeds of sale further meant the Aromins could not claim the rights of a purchaser in good faith, as they were charged with notice of the pending partition case and the resulting judgment.