G.R. No. L-14429. June 30, 1962.
RAMON MERCADO and BASILIA MERCADO joined by her husband FRANCISCO RONQUILLO, plaintiffs-appellants, vs. PIO D. LIWANAG, defendant-appellee.

FACTS

The plaintiffs, Ramon Mercado and Basilia Mercado, are co-owners pro-indiviso of a parcel of land. Without the knowledge and consent of his co-owner Basilia, Ramon Mercado executed a Deed of Sale in favor of defendant Pio D. Liwanag. The deed purported to sell a specific, divided half of the property, described by metes and bounds, for a stated price. Upon registration of this deed, the original Transfer Certificate of Title was cancelled. A new title was issued in the names of “Pio Liwanag and Basilia Mercado” as “co-owners pro-indiviso.”
The plaintiffs filed an action to annul the Deed of Sale, arguing it was void under Article 493 of the Civil Code, which governs the rights of co-owners. The parties submitted the case on a stipulation of facts, expressly setting aside all other issues, including any allegation of fraud, and presenting for resolution solely the legal issue of the sale’s validity under Article 493. The trial court held the sale valid and dismissed the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether the Deed of Sale executed by one co-owner, Ramon Mercado, conveying a specific portion of the co-owned property by metes and bounds, is valid and effective under Article 493 of the Civil Code.

RULING

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint. The legal logic proceeds from the principle in Article 493 that each co-owner has full ownership of his ideal, undivided share and may alienate it. However, such alienation affects only the portion ultimately allotted to him upon termination of the co-ownership; a co-owner cannot validly alienate a specific, physically divided portion of the property.
The Court agreed with appellants that the deed’s language, describing a “chosen portion” with specific boundaries, attempted an invalid conveyance of a determinate part, which a co-owner lacks the authority to execute. Nevertheless, the decisive factor was not the deed’s wording but the legal effect of its registration. The new Transfer Certificate of Title issued did not reflect a conveyance of a specific half; instead, it registered Liwanag and Basilia Mercado as new co-owners pro-indiviso. This title is conclusive.
Thus, the transaction’s ultimate result was that Ramon Mercado alienated only his undivided aliquot share, which Article 493 expressly permits. Basilia Mercado retained her co-ownership rights intact, merely having a new co-owner. Since the title correctly reflects a lawful co-ownership, the action for annulment has no basis. The Court noted that any erroneous mention of fraud in the lower court’s decision was immaterial and non-prejudicial, as the case was correctly decided on the stipulated legal issue.