G.R. No. 18009 ; January 10, 1923
EMILIO PUNSALAN, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. C. BOOT LIAT, ET AL., defendants-appellants.

FACTS

Twenty-one Moros (plaintiffs) and the defendant Ahamad jointly caught a whale and discovered a large quantity of ambergris in its abdomen. They agreed to own the ambergris in common and that none could sell it without the consent of all. A portion was sold to plaintiffs Cheong Tong and Lim Chiat by three of the co-owners (Tamsi, Imam Lumuyod, and Imam Asakil) without the consent of all. The remaining ambergris was left in the custody of Ahamad. Through a ruse involving a revenue cutter, defendant Henry E. Teck and others (C. Boon Liat, Ong Chua, Go Tong) located the ambergris. While on board the cutter, Ahamad, under pressure and a promise of protection from Teck, sold the entire lot to Teck and his group for P7,500, without the consent of his co-owners. The plaintiffs (the 21 Moro co-owners and the purchasers Cheong Tong and Lim Chiat) sued to recover the ambergris or its value.

ISSUE

1. Whether the sales of the ambergris made by some co-owners without the consent of all were valid.
2. Whether a co-owner (Ahamad) can be sued by his fellow co-owners for an act of exclusive ownership prejudicial to the community.
3. Whether the purchasers from Ahamad acted in good faith.

RULING

1. The sales were not valid as to the whole property. Under Article 399 of the Civil Code, a co-owner may only sell his ideal share; he cannot alienate the physical portion of the common property without the consent of all co-owners. Therefore, the sales by Tamsi et al. to Cheong Tong and Lim Chiat, and by Ahamad to Teck et al., were effective only with respect to the sellers’ proportionate shares, not the entire ambergris.
2. Yes, a co-owner can be sued by his fellow co-owners. The action for recovery, derived from the right of ownership, can be exercised not only against strangers but also against a co-owner who performs acts of exclusive ownership prejudicial to the community. By selling the entire ambergris as if he were the sole owner, Ahamad placed himself in the position of a stranger violating the rights of the co-ownership.
3. No, the purchasers (Teck et al.) did not act in good faith. The evidence, including Teck’s own admission that he promised Ahamad protection, indicated they were aware that Ahamad was not the sole owner and that the sale was made under pressure and in violation of the co-owners’ agreement.
The Court affirmed the lower court’s judgment with modification, ordering the defendants to deliver to the 21 Moro plaintiffs their 20/21 share of the ambergris or pay its value, which the Supreme Court fixed at P60,000 based on the evidence, instead of the lower court’s P12,000. The action of the purchasers (Cheong Tong and Lim Chiat) was only effective as to the share of the co-owners who sold to them.