GR 189420; (March, 2014) (Digest)
G.R. No. 189420, March 26, 2014
RAUL V. ARAMBULO AND TERESITA A. DELA CRUZ, Petitioners, vs. GENARO NOLASCO AND JEREMY SPENCER NOLASCO, Respondents.
FACTS
Petitioners Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, along with their mother and siblings, are co-owners of two parcels of land in Tondo, Manila. Their sister, Iraida Arambulo Nolasco, upon her death, was succeeded by her husband, respondent Genaro Nolasco, and their children, including respondent Jeremy Spencer Nolasco. All co-owners, except the respondents, authorized the petitioners to sell the properties. The respondents withheld their consent. Petitioners filed a petition for relief under Article 491 of the Civil Code with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), alleging that the respondents’ withholding of consent to the sale was prejudicial to the common interest. The RTC ruled in favor of the petitioners, ordering the respondents to give their consent to the sale and directing the sale and distribution of proceeds. The Court of Appeals reversed the RTC decision, holding that respondents, having full ownership of their undivided shares under Article 493 of the Civil Code, cannot be compelled to sell, and that petitioners failed to show how the withholding of consent was prejudicial. Petitioners sought review by the Supreme Court.
ISSUE
Whether respondents, as co-owners, can be compelled by the court to give their consent to the sale of their shares in the co-owned properties.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court denied the petition and affirmed the Court of Appeals decision. The Court held that Article 491 of the Civil Code, which allows courts to afford relief if a co-owner’s withholding of consent to an alteration is prejudicial to the common interest, does not apply to a proposed sale of the co-owned property. While a sale constitutes an “alteration,” the second paragraph of Article 491 does not authorize a court to compel a co-owner to consent to a sale. The applicable law is Article 493, which grants each co-owner full ownership of his undivided share, including the right to alienate it. A co-owner cannot be forced to sell his share; he may only sell his proportionate interest, and the buyer simply replaces him as a co-owner. The proper remedy for the petitioners, who wish to terminate the co-ownership, is to file an action for partition, not to compel a sale under Article 491. The denial of the petition is without prejudice to the filing of such an action for partition.