Lopez vs. Martinez (5 Phil. 567)

the whole of one part by metes and bounds.
All that Francisco Martinez undertook to do in

this case was to convey his undivided interest in these two properties. This he had a perfect
[ G.R. No. 2426, January 24, 1906 ]
right to do, in accordance with the terms of said article. There is nothing in the last clause of
the article inconsistent with this position. That declares simply that when the property is
FERNANDO MONTAO LOPEZ, PLAINTIFF AND APPELLEE, VS. PEDRO MARTINEZ divided the purchaser gets an interest only in that part which may be assigned to him. For
ILUSTRE, DEFENDANT AND APPELLANT. the purposes of this case we see no difference between it and a case in which the tenant in
common makes an absolute conveyance of his undivided interest in the property, without
DECISION reserving the right to repurchase. In the case of an absolute conveyance of that character,
the relation between the grantor in the deed and his cotenant is terminated. They are no
WILLARD, J.: longer cotenants. The grantee in the deed takes the place of the grantor, and he and the
other owner of the property become cotenants. In such a case the grantor loses all interest
On the 26th day of December, 1902, Francisco Martinez and the defendant, Pedro in the property, and of course has no right to take any part in the partition of it. It would be
Martinez, his son, were the owners as tenants in common of two separate parcels of land in absurd to say that after such conveyance the grantor, who had lost all his interest in the
Calle Dulumbayan, in the city of Manila, each being the owner of an undivided one-half of property, could by agreement with the other owner make a partition of property in which he
each of said tracts of land. On the 26th day of December, 1902, Francisco Martinez had no interest that would be binding upon his grantee.
conveyed to the .plaintiff his undivided half interest in both said tracts of land. This deed
contained a clause giving Martinez the right to repurchase the property within one year from We do not see how the fact that Francisco Martinez and his son were the owners of other
December 26, 1902. He did not repurchase it, and on the 28th of December, 1903, the pieces of property as tenants in common can affect the question presented in this case.
plaintiff caused the proper marginal entry to be made upon the books in the registry of Each tract was separate and distinct from all the others. The parties had a right to deal with
property in which registry the conveyance had been recorded, and afterwards brought this one lot without any reference to the other twenty-seven. The fact that the defendant
action in March, 1904, asking for a partition of the two lots of land, between himself and the acquired title to all of them by inheritance from his mother did not make them physically one
defendant, and that defendant account for and pay to the plaintiff his part of the rents of the tract of land, so that a conveyance by the son of his undivided half interest in one of these
said properties from the 26th day of December, 1903. lots would amount to a conveyance of a divided part of a tract of land held by him in
common with his father.
It appeared that Francisco Martinez and the defendant, his son, were the owners as tenants
in common of twenty-six other parcels of land; that in June, 1903, before the expiration of The judgment of the court below is affirmed, with the costs of this instance against the
the year in which Francisco Martinez had the right to repurchase the property so conveyed appellant, and after the expiration of twenty days judgment should be entered in accordance
to the plaintiff, he and the defendant, his son, made a voluntary partition of these twenty- herewith and the case remanded to the court below for execution. So ordered.
eight tracts of land, which partition was approved by the Court of First Instance of Manila on Arellano, C. J., Mapa, Johnson, and Carson, JJ., concur.
the 15th day of June, 1903. These twenty-eight tracts of land had been acquired by
Francisco Martinez during his marriage with his wife, Dona Germana Ilustre. The wife
having died, her estate was in process of administration in the Court of First Instance of
Manila, and the partition above mentioned was made on the theory that these lands were
the property of the conjugal partnership existing between Francisco Martinez and his wife. In
this partition the two parcels of land in question in this case fell to the defendant, and his
claim is that by this partition plaintiff lost all his interest in the property. Judgment was
entered in the court below in favor of plaintiff as prayed for in his complaint, and the
defendant has brought the case here by bill of exceptions.
Article 399 of the Civil Code is as follows:
"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, and even substitute
another person in its enjoyment, unless personal rights are in question. 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."
This article gives the owner of an undivided interest in the property the right to freely sell
and dispose of it that is, of his undivided interest. He has, no right to sell a divided part of
the real estate. If he is the owner of an undivided half of a tract of land, he has a right to sell
and convey an undivided half, but he has no right to divide the lot into two parts, and convey

Lopez vs. Martinez (5 Phil. 567)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez vs. Martinez (5 Phil. 567)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lopez vs. Martinez (5 Phil. 567)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

the whole of one part by metes and bounds.

All that Francisco Martinez undertook to do in

Article 399 of the Civil Code is as follows:

You might also like