Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 547 views

    Tomas Claudio vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    mary
    Mariano de Castro sold a parcel of land claiming to be the sole heir, but the private respondents contended he only owned 1/5 of the property. The petitioner filed to dismiss, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and the issues had been decided, but the motion was denied. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petitioner's special civil action for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property, the sale only affects their own share and not those of other co-owners who did not consent. Therefore, Mariano's sale as the "sole heir" did not affect the private respondents' shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Tomas Claudio vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    mary
    547 views1 page
    Mariano de Castro sold a parcel of land claiming to be the sole heir, but the private respondents contended he only owned 1/5 of the property. The petitioner filed to dismiss, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and the issues had been decided, but the motion was denied. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petitioner's special civil action for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property, the sale only affects their own share and not those of other co-owners who did not consent. Therefore, Mariano's sale as the "sole heir" did not affect the private respondents' shares.

    Original Description:

    tim

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Mariano de Castro sold a parcel of land claiming to be the sole heir, but the private respondents contended he only owned 1/5 of the property. The petitioner filed to dismiss, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and the issues had been decided, but the motion was denied. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petitioner's special civil action for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property, the sale only affects their own share and not those of other co-owners who did not consent. Therefore, Mariano's sale as the "sole heir" did not affect the private respondents' shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    547 views1 page

    Tomas Claudio vs. CA

    Uploaded by

    mary
    Mariano de Castro sold a parcel of land claiming to be the sole heir, but the private respondents contended he only owned 1/5 of the property. The petitioner filed to dismiss, claiming the court lacked jurisdiction and the issues had been decided, but the motion was denied. The Court of Appeals also dismissed the petitioner's special civil action for certiorari. The Supreme Court ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property, the sale only affects their own share and not those of other co-owners who did not consent. Therefore, Mariano's sale as the "sole heir" did not affect the private respondents' shares.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    TOMAS CLAUDIO MEMORIAL COLLEGE, INC. VS.

    COURT OF APPEALS

    G.R. No. 124262 October 12, 1999.

    FACTS:

    Mariano de Castro sold a parcel of land to the petitioner represented him self as the sole heir of the
    property. The private respondents contended that the sale was affected only to his share inequivalent of
    1/5 of the property. Petitioner then filed a motion to dismiss contending prescription/laches and lack of
    jurisdiction but denied by the trial court. Petitioner filed with Court of appeals a special civil action for
    certiorari anchored on the following grounds: a. the RTC has no jurisdiction to try and take cognizance of
    the case as the causes of action have been decided with finality by the Supreme Court. b. the RTC acted
    with grave abuse of discretion and authority in taking cognizance of the case. The Court of Appeals
    dismissed the petition in a decision dated August 14, 1995.

    ISSUE: Whether or not Mariano's sale affects the the shares of his co-owners.

    RULING: No. The Court ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect
    only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. Under Art. 493
    of the Civil Code, the sale or other disposition affects only the seller's share pro indiviso and the
    transferee gets only what corresponds to his grantor's share in the partition of the property owned in
    common. Thus, in the case at bar, the sale made by Mariano while representing as "sole heir" will not
    affect the shares of his co-owners which are the private respondents.

    You might also like