G.R. No. L-7847, December 24, 1914
BUENAVENTURA DANCEL, plaintiff-appellant, vs. MAMERTO DANCEL, ET AL., defendants-appellees. LUCAS SALVADOR, ET AL., interveners-appellees.

FACTS:
The plaintiff, Buenaventura Dancel, filed an action for partition against his siblings (the defendants) concerning certain rural properties in Ilocos Norte, which they allegedly inherited pro indiviso from their deceased father, Manuel Dancel. The defendants did not appear and were declared in default. However, several interveners (Lucas Salvador, et al.) claimed ownership of specific parcels of the property, having purchased them from some of the defendants and even from the plaintiff himself. They prayed for the dismissal of the complaint as to those parcels. Another party, Eugenia Agbayani, intervened, claiming a share as the heir of her son, Andres Vicente Dancel, who was a son of the plaintiff’s deceased brother, Domingo Dancel. The trial court ruled that: (1) the plaintiff could distribute the property among his siblings and Eugenia Agbayani if the facts in his petition were true; (2) the lands sold to the interveners should remain in their possession until their status is determined in a proper suit; and (3) the plaintiff and defendants should pay the costs. The plaintiff appealed.

ISSUE:
1. Whether the trial court erred in not ordering the partition of the common property not claimed by the interveners.
2. Whether the trial court erred in failing to decide Eugenia Agbayani’s claim to a share.
3. Whether the trial court erred in ordering that the lands sold to the interveners remain in their possession pending a separate action.
4. Whether the trial court erred in sentencing the plaintiff to pay the costs.

RULING:
The Supreme Court AFFIRMED the trial court’s judgment, with modifications clarifying the right to partition.

1. On the Right to Partition: The Court held that the plaintiff, as a co-owner, has an absolute right under Article 400 of the Civil Code to demand partition of the pro indiviso property at any time. This right is not extinguished by the fact that some co-owners have sold portions of the common property to third parties (the interveners). The trial court’s ruling, though ambiguously phrased, essentially recognized this right. The property must be considered as still held pro indiviso by all rightful claimants, including the plaintiff, his siblings, and Eugenia Agbayani.

2. On the Interveners’ Rights: The Court ruled that the interveners, as purchasers from co-owners, are subrogated to the rights of their vendors. Pursuant to Article 399 of the Civil Code and Section 762 of the Code of Civil Procedure, their rights are limited to the share that may be awarded to their vendors upon partition. They have the right to be heard in the partition proceedings. The trial court correctly ordered that the interveners’ possession of the parcels they purchased should not be disturbed until otherwise decreed in a proper action (e.g., an action to annul the sales). This interim order does not preclude the continuation of the partition action.

3. On the Partition Proceeding: The Court clarified that the partition should proceed among all parties having an interest: the plaintiff, his defendant-siblings, and Eugenia Agbayani (in the capacity she claimed). The interveners are to participate in the partition with respect to the shares they acquired. The final allotment of specific parcels will determine the validity and extent of the interveners’ claims vis-à-vis the other co-owners.

4. On the Costs: The Supreme Court found no error in the costs being imposed on the appellant, as the judgment was substantially affirmed.

DOCTRINE:
A co-owner has an absolute right to demand partition of the common property at any time (Art. 400, Civil Code). The sale by a co-owner of a specific portion of the undivided property does not prevent partition; the purchaser is merely subrogated to the rights of the vendor-co-owner and is entitled to the share that may be allotted to such vendor upon division (Art. 399, Civil Code; Sec. 762, Code of Civil Procedure). The purchaser’s right to the specific parcel sold is subject to the outcome of the partition.