G.R. No. 161027 ; June 22, 2009
FRANCISCO G. CALMA, Petitioner, vs. ARSENIO SANTOS, et al., Respondents.

FACTS

The subject of the controversy is the Calangain Fishpond in Pampanga, registered under TCT Nos. 32391-R and 32392-R in the names of Celestino Santos (with a 1/2 share) and his children (with the other 1/2 share). After Celestino’s death, petitioner Francisco Calma purchased, through various deeds of sale and agreements, the undivided shares of several co-owners/heirs in the fishpond. These included shares from Encarnacion, Arcadio, Feliza, the heirs of Federico, Leonardo, Alfredo, Dominador, and Leticia.
Calma demanded from the other co-owners the segregation and delivery of the specific portions corresponding to the shares he purchased. Upon their failure to comply, he filed a complaint for specific performance and partition. In their answers, the respondents admitted the existence of the sale documents but challenged their validity, alleging vitiating defects. They further claimed that certain shares, particularly those of Celestino and Jose Santos, had already been sold to respondent Arsenio Santos during their lifetimes and thus did not pass to their heirs.

ISSUE

The core issue is whether the petitioner, as a purchaser of undivided shares from several co-owners, is entitled to a decree of partition of the Calangain Fishpond.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner is entitled to partition. The legal logic is anchored on the nature of co-ownership and the right of a co-owner to alienate his proportionate share. The Court found that the sales transactions in favor of Calma were duly established by evidence, including deeds of absolute sale, receipts, and agreements. The respondents’ defenses, which primarily questioned the validity of these sales, were deemed unsubstantiated. The claim of a prior sale to Arsenio Santos was not proven with clear and convincing evidence, as the alleged deed of sale was not presented in court.
Since no compelling reason existed to invalidate the transfers, Calma effectively stepped into the shoes of his vendors as a co-owner of the undivided property. Under Article 494 of the Civil Code, no co-owner is obliged to remain in a co-ownership indefinitely. Each co-owner has the right to demand partition at any time, a right which is imprescriptible and inherent in the nature of co-ownership. Consequently, as a successor-in-interest to several original co-owners, Calma acquired the same right to seek the division of the property. The Court affirmed the appellate decision ordering the partition of the fishpond to segregate the portions corresponding to the shares validly purchased by the petitioner.