G.R. No. 46079; March 24, 1944
MARIA LOPEZ, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAGDALENA GONZAGA VDA. DE CUAYCONG, ET AL., defendants-appellees; LOPEZ SUGAR CENTRAL MILL CO., INC., intervenor-appellant.

FACTS

The intervenor-appellant, Lopez Sugar Central Mill Co., Inc., moved for reconsideration of a prior resolution dated July 20, 1940. In an earlier decision dated January 29, 1940, the Court had declared a deed of sale (Exhibit D) void as to three daughters (Maria Cristina, Josefina, and Anita Cuaycong) who did not participate in the sale, but valid as to the widow and other consenting children of Cuaycong, and ordered the intervenor to remove buildings constructed on Lot 178-B. The July 20, 1940 resolution subsequently declared the sale void in its entirety, holding that the widow and adult children could not alienate a definite part of the hacienda without prior partition, as they only held abstract, undivided shares.

ISSUE

1. Was the consent of the three daughters (Maria Cristina, Josefina, and Anita Cuaycong) necessary for the validity of the sale?
2. What rights did the intervenor acquire from the sale?
3. Should the distillery building and other improvements on Lot 178-B be removed by the intervenor?

RULING

1. On the necessity of consent: No. The consent of the three daughters was not necessary. Under Articles 392 and 399 of the Civil Code, each co-owner has full ownership of his undivided or ideal share and may alienate, mortgage, or encumber it without the consent of the other co-owners. The effect of such alienation is limited to the share that may be allotted to the alienating co-owner upon partition. Authorities (Manresa, Sanchez Roman, Scaevola) confirm that a co-owner may dispose of his abstract share freely.
2. On the rights acquired by the intervenor: The intervenor acquired the same rights as the grantors had as co-owners—specifically, an ideal, undivided share equivalent in value to 10,832 square meters of the hacienda. No specific, physically identified portion was sold; the concrete portion will only be determined upon partition. The sale is valid but subject to the outcome of partition. The intervenor, as a co-owner, has the right to demand partition under the Civil Code.
3. On the removal of improvements: No. The sale being valid, the intervenor is a builder in good faith. If, upon partition, Lot 178-B is not adjudicated to the intervenor, Article 361 of the Civil Code will apply. This article gives the landowner the right to appropriate the improvements upon indemnity, or to oblige the builder to pay the price of the land. Consequently, the prior order for the removal of the buildings is cancelled.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Court granted the motion for reconsideration. It declared the deed of sale (Exhibit D) valid and binding upon all parties, including the three minor daughters. The intervenor, as a co-owner, has a right to demand partition. If Lot 178-B is not adjudicated to the intervenor in the partition, the rules on builders in good faith under Article 361 shall apply. The order for the removal of the buildings is withdrawn.
CONCURRING OPINION:
Justice Moran concurred in the result by analogy with the doctrine in Teves de Jacosalem vs. Nicolas Rafols.