G.R. No. L-5628
BERNARDA ALIASAS, ET AL., plaintiffs-appellees, vs. PEDRO ALCANTARA, ET AL., defendants-appellants.
August 22, 1910

FACTS: The plaintiffs, Bernarda Aliasas and her children Florentino, Luis, Candida, and Ambrosio Alinea, are co-owners of a house and lot in San Pablo, La Laguna. The property was acquired during the marriage of Bernarda Aliasas and her deceased husband, Doroteo Alinea. Upon Doroteo’s death, his one-half share of the conjugal property devolved to his four children in equal parts, meaning each child inherited one-eighth (1/8) of the total property, while Bernarda retained her one-half (1/2) share. Thus, Bernarda owned 4/8, and each child owned 1/8, for a total of 8/8. The property remained undivided.

Defendant Ambrosio Alinea, one of the co-heirs, proceeded to sell and transfer the entire house and lot to defendant Pedro Alcantara, without the knowledge, consent, or authorization of his mother or his co-heirs. The plaintiffs filed a complaint seeking to annul the sale as to their respective shares, restore possession, and claim damages, arguing that Ambrosio could only dispose of his 1/8 share.

Pedro Alcantara, in his defense, claimed that Ambrosio Alinea had been in possession of the property as the exclusive owner for over ten years, leading him to believe Ambrosio had the right to sell. However, Alcantara was in possession of the original title deed in the name of Doroteo Alinea, which would have indicated the property’s common ownership. No legal partition of the hereditary property was ever proven.

The lower court’s modified judgment declared the sale null and void with respect to the portions belonging to the plaintiffs (Bernarda, Florentino, and Candida), which collectively amounted to six-eighths (6/8) of the property. It declared the sale valid for Ambrosio’s one-eighth (1/8) share. Pedro Alcantara was also allowed to possess Luis Alinea’s one-eighth (1/8) share until Luis’s rights were properly determined. Pedro Alcantara appealed this decision.

ISSUE: 1. Can a co-owner legally sell the entire undivided common property without the consent of the other co-owners?
2. Does the ostensible possession of an undivided property by one co-heir establish exclusive ownership by prescription against the other co-heirs?

RULING: 1. No. A co-owner cannot legally dispose of the whole of an undivided property, nor can they deprive their mother and co-heirs of their unquestionable rights in the same, without proper legal partition and consent. Until the property is legally divided, each heir holds only an undivided aliquot share. Consequently, Ambrosio Alinea could only transfer to Pedro Alcantara the right pertaining to his one-eighth (1/8) share of the house and lot. The sale or transfer of the remaining seven-eighths (7/8) of the property, which includes the plaintiffs’ 6/8 and Luis’s 1/8, is absolutely null and void. The defendant Alcantara could not claim good faith as he was in possession of the original title deed in Doroteo Alinea’s name, which indicated common ownership, and he should have made proper investigations.

2. No. The possession of an undivided house and lot by a co-heir (Ambrosio Alinea) following the death of his father (Doroteo) cannot create an exclusive right in favor of that possessor. As the property remained pro indiviso (undivided), Ambrosio Alinea’s possession is understood to be held by him as an heir and in the name of his mother and the other co-heirs. As one of the co-heirs, he could not hold it exclusively for the purposes of prescription, as common pro indiviso property cannot be acquired by a co-heir through prescription (Article 1965, Civil Code).

Therefore, the Supreme Court affirmed the modified judgment of the lower court. The sale made by Ambrosio Alinea was declared null and void with respect to the six-eighths (6/8) of the property belonging to the plaintiffs (Bernarda, Florentino, and Candida Alinea), and valid only for Ambrosio Alinea’s one-eighth (1/8) share. Pedro Alcantara was allowed to possess Luis Alinea’s one-eighth (1/8) share until Luis’s rights were determined.