G.R. No.

187987 November 26, 2014 motion was signed by the co-owners (including the petitioners) wherein Lot
No. 4389 was agreed to be adjudicated to the co-owners belonging to the
VICENTE TORRES, JR., CARLOS VELEZ, AND THE HEIRS OF MARIANO group of Jesus and the other lots be divided to the other co-owners
VELEZ, NAMELY: ANITA CHIONG VELEZ, ROBERT OSCAR CHIONG belonging to the group of Torres.
VELEZ, SARAH JEAN CHIONG VELEZ AND TED CHIONG VELEZ, Petitioners,
vs.  Jesus further alleged that even prior to the partition and motion, several co-
LORENZO LAPINID AND JESUS VELEZ, Respondents. owners in his group had already sold their shares to him in various dates of
1985, 1990 and 2004.

Facts:  Thus, when the motion was filed and signed by the parties on 6 November
1997, his rights as a majority co-owner (73%) of Lot No. 4389 became
 Vicente Torres, et al. (petitioners) including Jesus Velez (respondent) are co- consolidated. Jesus averred that it was unnecessary to give notice of the sale
owners of several parcels of lands (Lot No. 4389) in Carcar, Cebu. as the lot was already adjudicated in his favor. He clarified that he only
agreed with the 2001 Compromise Agreement believing that it only pertained
 Sometime in 1993, Jesus filed an action for partition of the parcels of land to the remaining parcels of land excluding Lot No. 4389.
against the petitioners and other co-owners before Branch 21 of RTC Cebu
City.  Lapinid admitted that he entered into a deed of sale with Jesus covering the
3000 sq. meters land. Lapinid avers that he believed that Jesus was the
 On 13 August 2001, a judgment was rendered based on a compromise majority owner of the land when the latter showed several titles in support of
agreement signed by the parties wherein they agreed that Jesus, Mariano his claim. He further denied that he acquired a specific and definite portion
and Vicente were jointly authorized to sell the said properties and of the questioned property, citing as evidence the deed of sale which does not
receive the proceeds thereof and distribute them to all the co-owners. mention any boundaries or specific portion. He explained that Jesus
permitted him to occupy a portion not exceeding 3000 square meters
 However, the agreement was later amended to exclude Jesus as an conditioned on the result of the partition of the co-owners.
authorized seller. Pursuant to their mandate, the petitioners inspected the
property and discovered that Lapinid was occupying a specific portion of The RTC Ruling
the 3000 square meters of Lot No. 4389 by virtue of a deed of sale
 The RTC dismissed the complaint for forcible entry. But also annulled the
executed by Jesus in favor of Lapinid. It was pointed out by petitioner
site assignment by Jesus Velez in the Deed of Sale to Lorenzo Lapinid
that as a consequence of what they discovered, a forcible entry case was
because of the lack of exact location of which still has to be determined
filed against Lapinid.
either by agreement of the co-owners or by the Court in proper proceedings.
 The petitioners prayed that the deed of sale be declared null and void
 Aggrieved, petitioners filed their partial motion for reconsideration which was
arguing that the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property without
denied. Thereafter, they filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeals.
notice to the other co-owners is without force and effect.

 Further, the complainants prayed for payment of rental fees amounting to The CA Ruling
₱1,000.00 per month from January 2004 or from the time of deprivation of
property in addition to attorney’s fees and litigation expenses.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the trial court. It validated the
sale and ruled that the compromise agreement did not affect the validity of
 Jesus admitted that there was a partition case between him and the the sale previously executed by Jesus and Lapinid. It likewise dismissed the
petitioners filed in 1993 involving several parcels of land including the claim for rental payments, attorney’s fees and litigation expenses of the
contested Lot No. 4389. he insisted that as early as 6 November 1997, a petitioners.
Issue: perfection of contract on 9 November 1997, Lapinid eventually became a co-
owner of the property.
Whether or not a co-owner (Jesus Velez) can validly sell a portion of land he co-
owns in favor of another favor.  Even assuming that the petitioners are correct in their allegation that the
Whether or not Lapinid must pay rental payments to the other co-owners. disposition in favor of Lapinid before partition was a concrete or definite
portion, the validity of sale still prevails.
Ruling:
 The Supreme Court had repeatedly held that no individual can claim title to
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jesus Velez and Lorenzo Lapinid and denied a definite or concrete portion before partition of co-owned property. Each co-
the petition on the grounds that: owner only possesses a right to sell or alienate his ideal share after partition.
On the First Issue
 However, in case he disposes his share before partition, such disposition
 A co-owner has an absolute ownership of his undivided and pro indiviso does not make the sale or alienation null and void. What will be affected on
share in the co-owned property. He has the right to alienate, assign and the sale is only his proportionate share, subject to the results of the
mortgage it, even to the extent of substituting a third person in its enjoyment partition. The co-owners who did not give their consent to the sale stand to
provided that no personal rightswill be affected. This is evident from the be unaffected by the alienation.
provision of the Art. 493 of the Civil Code:
 The validity of sale being settled, it follows that the subsequent compromise
Article 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of agreement between the other co-owners did not affect the rights of Lapinid
his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and as a co-owner.
he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when  Records show that on 13 August 2001, a judgment based on compromise
personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or agreement was rendered with regard to the previous partition case involving
the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the same parties pertaining to several parcels of land, including the disputed
the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon lot. The words of the compromise state that: COME NOW[,] the parties and
the termination of the co-ownership. to this Honorable Court, most respectfully state that instead of partitioning
the properties, subject matter of litigation, that they will just sell the
 A co-owner is an owner of the whole and over the whole he exercises the
properties covered by TCT Nos. 25796, 25797 and 25798 of the
right of dominion, but he is at the same time the owner of a portion which is
Register of Deeds of the Province of Cebu and divide the proceeds
truly abstract. Hence, his co-owners have no right to enjoin a co-owner who
among themselves.
intends to alienate or substitute his abstract portion or substitute a third
person in its enjoyment.
 That Jesus Velez, Mariano Velez and Vicente Torres, Jr. are currently
authorized to sell said properties, receive the proceeds thereof and distribute
 In this case, Jesus can validly alienate his co-owned property in favor of
them to the parties.
Lapinid, free from any opposition from the co-owners. Lapinid, as a
transferee, validly obtained the same rights of Jesus from the date of the
 Be that as it may, the compromise agreement failed to defeat the already
execution of a valid sale. Absent any proof that the sale was not perfected,
accrued right of ownership of Lapinid over the share sold by Jesus. As early
the validity of sale subsists.
as 9 November 1997, Lapinid already became a co-owner of the property
and thus, vested with all the rights enjoyed by the other co-owners. The
 In essence, Lapinid steps into the shoes of Jesus as co-owner of an ideal and
judgment based on the compromise agreement, which is to have the covered
proportionate share in the property held in common. Thus, from the
 properties sold, is valid and effectual provided as it does not affect the  Each co-owner of property held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the
proportionate share of the non-consenting party. whole property and may use and enjoy the same with no other
limitation than that he shall not injure the interests of his co-owners,
 Accordingly, when the compromise agreement was executed without the reason being that until a division is made, the respective share of
Lapinid’s consent, said agreement could not have affected his ideal and each cannot be determined and every co-owner exercises, together with
undivided share. Petitioners cannot sell Lapinid’s share absent his consent. his co-participants joint ownership over the pro indiviso property, in
Nemo dat quod non habet – "no one can give what he does not have." addition to his use and enjoyment of the same.

 The Supreme Court has ruled in many cases that even if a co-owner sells  From the foregoing, it is absurd to rule that Lapinid, who is already a
the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not co-owner, be ordered to pay rental payments to his other co-owners.
those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. This is because Lapinid’s right of enjoyment over the property owned in common must
the sale or other disposition of a co-owner affects only his undivided share be respected despite opposition and may notbe limited as long he uses
and the transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the the property to the purpose for which it isintended and he does not
partition of the thing owned in common. injure the interest of the co-ownership.

On the Second Issue:

 As previously discussed, Lapinid, from the execution of sale, became a co-

 The Court cited, in support of its ruling, Art. 486 and 493 of the Civil
Code which provide that:

Art. 486. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in

Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his
part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he
may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when
personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or
mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the
portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the
termination of the co-ownership.