G.R. No. L-5075
MAURICIO RAMIREZ, administrator of the estate of MOISES RAMIREZ, deceased, plaintiff-appellee, vs. SIMEON BAUTISTA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
December 1, 1909

FACTS: Moises Ramirez died intestate in February 1900, leaving two fish ponds. He was married twice. By his first marriage with Apolinaria Guillermo, he had five children: Rosa, Carmen, Francisco, Mauricia, and Ignacia. By his second marriage with Alejandra Capistrano, he had three children: Cirila, Isabel, and Serapio, of whom only Isabel (then about 8 years old) survived. Both wives had predeceased him. The two fish ponds were acquired during his first marriage on March 17, 1895.

On November 28, 1901, the five children from Moises Ramirez’s first marriage sold the two fish ponds to Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran for 1,100 pesos. Isabel, the sole surviving child of the second marriage, was not a party to this sale. Mauricio Ramirez, as administrator of Moises Ramirez’s estate, filed a complaint to have the sale declared null and void, to recover possession of the fish ponds, and to secure damages, asserting that the properties belonged to the intestate estate and could not be sold without partition.

The Court of First Instance of Bulacan declared the sale null and void, decreed the restoration of possession of the fish ponds to the administrator, and awarded damages. The defendants (purchasers) appealed, arguing, among others, that the children of Moises Ramirez had become co-owners of the fish ponds upon his death and could validly transmit their rights, and that the sale should be declared valid as to their proportionate share.

ISSUE: Can co-heirs validly sell their undivided shares in inherited property without prior partition, and if so, is the entire sale void if one co-heir did not participate?

RULING: Yes, co-heirs can validly sell their undivided shares in inherited property. The Supreme Court found that the two fish ponds were conjugal property of Moises Ramirez and his first wife, Apolinaria Guillermo. Upon Apolinaria’s death, one-half belonged to Moises, and the other half to their five children as her heirs. Upon Moises’ death, his half was to be divided among all his eight children (five from the first marriage and three from the second). With the death of two children from the second marriage, their shares accrued to Isabel.

Applying the law of succession and co-ownership, the Court determined that the five children of the first marriage collectively owned thirteen-sixteenths (13/16) of the fish ponds (8/16 inherited from their mother + 5/16 inherited from their father), while Isabel Ramirez owned three-sixteenths (3/16).

The Court held that a community of property existed among the heirs until partition. Under Article 399 of the Civil Code, “Every coowner shall have full ownership of his part and in the fruits and benefits derived therefrom, and he therefore may alienate, assign, or mortgage it… But the effect of the alienation or mortgage, with regard to the coowners, shall be limited to the share which may be awarded him in the division on the dissolution of the community.”

Therefore, the sale by the five children of the first marriage of their thirteen-sixteenths (13/16) share in the fish ponds was valid. However, the sale of the three-sixteenths (3/16) share belonging to Isabel Ramirez, who was not a party to the sale, was null and void.

Consequently, the Court modified the CFI judgment. It affirmed the judgment only insofar as it declared the sale of the three-sixteenths (3/16) share belonging to Isabel Ramirez null and void. In all other respects, including the restitution of the entire property to the administrator, the judgment was reversed. The purchasers, Simeon Bautista and Raymundo Duran, succeeded to the vendors’ rights and became legitimate proprietors and possessors of the thirteen-sixteenths (13/16) share in joint ownership with Isabel Ramirez. The intestate estate of Moises Ramirez could not claim the entirety of the fish ponds.