GR L 5334; (January, 1910) (Digest)
G.R. No. L-5334
CALIXTO MAINIT, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellants, vs. VICENTE BANDOY, ET AL., defendants-appellees.
January 10, 1910
FACTS:
A parcel of land in Santa Cruz, La Laguna, was owned in common by four brothers: Marcelo, Calixto, Severo, and Alejandro Mainit. In 1896, Marcelo Mainit, the eldest brother, sold the entire land under pacto de retro to the spouses Vicente Bandoy and Severina Tec for 30 pesos.
On July 11, 1906, Calixto, Severo (who was a minor at the time of the complaint but later sold his share to the appellees and withdrew his appeal during the Supreme Court proceedings), and Alejandro (a minor represented by a guardian ad litem) filed a complaint to have the contract declared null and to recover possession of the land.
The defendants, the spouses Bandoy and Tec, acknowledged the sale and presented evidence that Marcelo received 30 pesos and Calixto received 20 pesos, and that these amounts were spent for the care and maintenance of the four co-owner brothers.
The Court of First Instance (CFI) of Laguna absolved the defendants of the complaint for nullification, ruling that they could continue in ownership of the whole land upon paying the plaintiffs an additional 30 pesos. The plaintiffs appealed this decision.
ISSUE:
1. Was the sale of the entire co-owned land by Marcelo Mainit, without the consent of the other co-owners (especially the minors), valid?
2. Did the CFI err in allowing the defendants to retain full ownership of the land by paying an additional sum?
3. What is the proper legal remedy for the parties given the established co-ownership?
RULING:
The Supreme Court DISMISSED the complaint.
1. On the validity of the sale:
Under Article 399 of the Civil Code, every co-owner has full ownership of their part and may alienate it. Thus, Marcelo Mainit’s alienation of his one-fourth share of the land was legal, valid, and effective, substituting the defendants in the enjoyment of that share.
However, when Marcelo sold the entire land, he disposed of the three-fourths that did not belong to him. As to these three-fourths, particularly the shares belonging to the minors Calixto and Alejandro, the sale was illegal and without effect, as it was not carried out in accordance with the legal provisions for the sale of realty in which minors are interested (e.g., proper acts of a guardian).
The rule of prescription for redemption under Article 1508 of the Civil Code was not applicable, as the action was for nullification of an unauthorized sale and recovery of possession, not for redemption.
2. On the CFI’s ruling: The Supreme Court found the CFI’s ruling, which compelled the plaintiffs to effect a sale for a determined price by allowing defendants to acquire full ownership upon additional payment, to be erroneous. A judicial sentence cannot be imposed against the free consent of the parties to a contract in such a manner.
3. On the proper remedy:
A co-ownership was firmly established. The defendants became co-owners of Marcelo’s one-fourth share and, subsequently, Severo’s one-fourth share (totaling one-half). Calixto Mainit and Alejandro Mainit remained co-owners of their respective shares.
Given this established co-ownership, an action for nullification or for recovery of possession as presented* could not be maintained. Instead, the appropriate remedies provided by the Civil Code for co-heirs and co-owners, such as an action for division of the property (partition) or consolidation of shares, should be pursued.