G.R. No. L-3196
CARMEN ZAMORA GONZAGA Y PILAR, plaintiff-appellee, vs. PEDRO MARTINEZ, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
January 6, 1908

FACTS:

On December 2, 1902, Francisco Martinez sold his undivided one-half interest in a parcel of real estate to Carmen Zamora Gonzaga y Pilar for $3,000. The contract included a pacto de retro clause, allowing Francisco to repurchase the property within twelve months. The sale was registered on December 27, 1902. Francisco also agreed to rent the property from Gonzaga for P30 Mexican currency per month.

Francisco never exercised his right to repurchase, and the sale was consolidated in Gonzaga’s name on December 22, 1903.

Prior to the consolidation, in June 1903, Francisco Martinez and Pedro Martinez (his son), as the only heirs of Germana Ilustre, executed a partition agreement for Germana’s estate, which included the real estate in question. This partition agreement, approved by the Court of First Instance on June 15, 1903, allotted all the real estate involved in this action to Pedro Martinez.

Gonzaga subsequently filed this action to recover her undivided one-half interest in the property and its rental value since December 3, 1903, alleging she was deprived of it by the defendants. The trial court ruled in favor of Gonzaga, finding that the sale to her was valid and unaffected by the subsequent partition agreement. Pedro Martinez appealed.

ISSUE:

Did the subsequent partition agreement between co-heirs Francisco Martinez and Pedro Martinez affect the validity and ownership of the undivided one-half interest in the real estate that Francisco Martinez had previously sold to Carmen Zamora Gonzaga y Pilar?

RULING:

No, the subsequent partition agreement between the co-heirs did not affect the prior valid sale made by Francisco Martinez to Carmen Zamora Gonzaga y Pilar.

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decision, citing the precedent set in Montano Lopez vs. Martinez Ilustre (5 Phil. Rep., 567). In that case, the Court held that a partition between co-owners does not affect the rights of a third party to whom one of the co-owners had previously sold his undivided interest in the common property.

Therefore, notwithstanding the partition agreement that allotted the entire property to Pedro Martinez, Carmen Zamora Gonzaga y Pilar remained the owner of the undivided one-half interest she had purchased from Francisco Martinez. The judgment of the trial court, which recognized Gonzaga’s ownership and awarded her the property and rentals, was affirmed.