G.R. No. 187987 , November 26, 2014
VICENTE TORRES, JR., CARLOS VELEZ, AND THE HEIRS OF MARIANO VELEZ, NAMELY: ANITA CHIONG VELEZ, ROBERT OSCAR CHIONG VELEZ, SARAH JEAN CHIONG VELEZ AND TED CHIONG VELEZ, Petitioners, vs. LORENZO LAPINID AND JESUS VELEZ, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners Vicente Torres, Jr., Mariano Velez, and Carlos Velez, co-owners of several parcels of land including Lot No. 4389, filed a complaint seeking the nullification of a deed of sale executed by their co-owner, respondent Jesus Velez, in favor of respondent Lorenzo Lapinid over a 3,000-square-meter portion of the co-owned lot. They argued the sale was void for being a sale of a definite portion without notice to the other co-owners. The sale was executed on November 9, 1997. Petitioners based their action on a subsequent Compromise Agreement dated August 13, 2001, from a prior partition case, which authorized Jesus Velez, Mariano Velez, and Vicente Torres, Jr. to jointly sell the properties and distribute the proceeds, and which was later amended to exclude Jesus Velez as an authorized seller. Jesus Velez claimed that prior to the Compromise Agreement, the co-owners had agreed via a 1997 motion to adjudicate Lot No. 4389 to his group, and he had consolidated ownership of 73% of the lot by purchasing shares from other co-owners. Lapinid asserted he was a buyer in good faith, and the deed of sale did not specify boundaries for the 3,000-square-meter portion. The Regional Trial Court and the Court of Appeals dismissed the complaint, upholding the validity of the sale.

ISSUE

Whether a co-owner can validly sell a portion of a co-owned property to another person, and whether such a sale is rendered null and void if it involves a definite portion of the property or if it contravenes a subsequent compromise agreement among the other co-owners.

RULING

The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the lower courts’ decisions. The Court ruled that a co-owner, under Article 493 of the Civil Code, has full ownership of his undivided share and may validly alienate, assign, or mortgage it. Jesus Velez’s sale of his ideal share to Lapinid on November 9, 1997, was valid. Lapinid stepped into the shoes of Jesus Velez as a co-owner from the perfection of the contract. The Court further held that even if the sale involved a definite or concrete portion of the co-owned property prior to partition, the sale is not null and void. The effect of such an alienation is limited to the vendor’s proportionate share, and the vendee acquires the vendor’s rights as a co-owner to an ideal share equivalent to the consideration. The subsequent Compromise Agreement of 2001 did not affect the validity of the 1997 sale or defeat Lapinid’s already accrued rights as a co-owner. The Court also denied the petitioners’ claims for damages, attorney’s fees, and litigation expenses, finding no basis for the award.