G.R. No. 128004 September 29, 1998
MARCELINO TAN, LUZ S. BRIONES, CARLOS D. BRIONES, CONRADO BRIONES, FELICISIMO BRIONES, & FLORA BRIONES JOVELLANOS, petitioners, vs. JOSE RENATO LIM, CYNTHIA GO, ADORACION REYES, PURIFICACION REYES, OSCAR REYES, LILIA REYES, IMELDA REYES, ANTONIO BRIONES, AMBROCIO BRIONES, FELISA BRIONES, JUANITO BRIONES, ARTURO BRIONES, TEOFILA BRIONES, & VIRGINIA BRIONES, respondents.

FACTS

The case involves two consolidated civil cases concerning a 488-square meter parcel of land covered by TCT No. 95314. The property was originally owned by brothers Victoriano and Joaquin Briones. Upon their deaths, Victoriano’s one-half share was inherited by his children and grandchild: petitioners Flora Briones Jovellanos, Carlos, Felicisimo, Luz, and Conrado Briones (heirs of Victoriano). Joaquin’s one-half share was inherited by his children and grandchildren: respondents Ambrocio, Antonio, Felisa, Jose, Arturo, Virginia, Juanito, Teofilo Briones, and Adoracion, Purificacion, Oscar, Imelda, and Lilia Reyes (heirs of Joaquin).
In March 1983, petitioners (heirs of Victoriano) leased their undivided one-half portion (244 sq.m.) to co-petitioner Marcelino Tan for three years. In July and August 1983, respondents (heirs of Joaquin) sold their undivided shares in the property to respondent spouses Jose Renato Lim and Cynthia Go through several deeds of absolute sale. Respondent Lim subsequently padlocked a gate fronting Ancheta Street, which petitioner Tan claimed was his only means of ingress and egress to the leased property, and demolished walls Tan was constructing for a warehouse.
This led to the filing of two cases: 1) Civil Case No. 6518 by Marcelino Tan for injunction and damages against respondents Lim and Go; and 2) Civil Case No. 6521 by petitioners (heirs of Victoriano) for legal redemption against all respondents. The Regional Trial Court ruled in favor of petitioners in both cases, ordering respondents to open the gate, remove constructions, pay damages, and resell the shares to petitioners. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, dismissing both complaints. The appellate court found that an oral partition of the property had occurred between the heirs of Victoriano and Joaquin prior to the sale, effectively terminating the co-ownership; thus, the right of legal redemption under Article 1620 did not apply. It also found that petitioner Tan failed to prove the existence of a right of way.

ISSUE

The primary issue is whether the Court of Appeals erred in ruling that an oral partition of the co-owned property had taken place, thereby extinguishing the petitioners’ right of legal redemption under Article 1620 of the Civil Code. A secondary issue pertains to the propriety of the damages awarded in the injunction case.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court held that the finding of the Court of Appeals that an oral partition had taken place was binding, as it was a factual conclusion supported by evidence and not palpably erroneous. The oral agreement to partition, where the heirs of Joaquin took the interior half and the heirs of Victoriano took the anterior half abutting the street, coupled with its execution by the parties (evidenced by the heirs of Victoriano leasing exactly one-half of the total area and the heirs of Joaquin selling their specific half), effectively dissolved the co-ownership. Consequently, at the time of the sale to respondents Lim and Go, the vendors were already exclusive owners of a specific portion, not co-owners of an undivided share. Therefore, the sale was not subject to the right of legal redemption under Article 1620, which applies only to sales of undivided interests in a co-owned property.
Regarding Civil Case No. 6518, the Supreme Court upheld the appellate court’s finding that petitioner Marcelino Tan failed to substantiate his claim of a right of way. The alleged gate was on the portion sold to respondent Lim, who, as the owner, had the right to enclose his property. Tan’s claim of damages was thus unfounded. The Court also noted the trial court’s error in disregarding respondent Lim’s evidence due to a procedural lapse, as the Court of Appeals correctly considered it.