GR L 2426; (January, 1906) (Digest)
FACTS:
On December 26, 1902, Francisco Martinez and his son, defendant-appellant Pedro Martinez Ilustre, were co-owners (tenants in common) of two specific parcels of land in Manila. On that date, Francisco Martinez sold his undivided one-half interest in these two parcels to plaintiff-appellee Fernando Montaño Lopez, with a right to repurchase within one year. Francisco Martinez failed to repurchase. In June 1903, before the repurchase period expired, Francisco Martinez and the defendant executed a voluntary partition of 28 parcels of land (including the two in question) they owned in common, which partition was approved by the court. In this partition, the two parcels subject to the sale were allotted to the defendant. Plaintiff Lopez subsequently sought judicial partition of the two parcels and an accounting of rents from the defendant, claiming his rights as a co-owner were unaffected by the partition between Francisco and Pedro Martinez.
ISSUE:
Whether the voluntary partition executed by Francisco Martinez and the defendant, which allotted the subject parcels to the defendant, validly divested the plaintiff of the undivided interest he acquired from Francisco Martinez.
RULING:
No. The partition did not divest the plaintiff of his rights. Under Article 399 of the Civil Code, a co-owner has full ownership of his undivided share and may alienate it. By selling his undivided interest to the plaintiff, Francisco Martinez effectively transferred his status as a co-owner to the plaintiff. Consequently, Francisco Martinez lost all interest in the property and no longer had any right to participate in its partition. The subsequent partition agreement between Francisco and the defendant, in which Francisco purported to deal with property he no longer owned, could not bind the plaintiff, who had already become the defendant’s new co-owner. The fact that the parcels were part of a larger set of commonly owned properties did not alter this principle, as each parcel is distinct. The judgment of the lower court in favor of the plaintiff was affirmed.