Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 131 views

    Spouses Primo Inalvez and Juliana Inalvez

    Uploaded by

    rose
    The Supreme Court ruled that co-ownership between the parties continued over the subject property, even after it was purchased by TDB and the title was transferred to TDB's name, and later purchased back by the petitioners. While TDB consolidated ownership over the property, it only held the property in trust for the respondents as co-owners. The petitioners acquiring the property back from TDB did not terminate the existing co-ownership or alienate the respondents' rights as co-owners.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Primo Inalvez and Juliana Inalvez

    Uploaded by

    rose
    131 views1 page
    The Supreme Court ruled that co-ownership between the parties continued over the subject property, even after it was purchased by TDB and the title was transferred to TDB's name, and later purchased back by the petitioners. While TDB consolidated ownership over the property, it only held the property in trust for the respondents as co-owners. The petitioners acquiring the property back from TDB did not terminate the existing co-ownership or alienate the respondents' rights as co-owners.

    Original Title

    SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The Supreme Court ruled that co-ownership between the parties continued over the subject property, even after it was purchased by TDB and the title was transferred to TDB's name, and later purchased back by the petitioners. While TDB consolidated ownership over the property, it only held the property in trust for the respondents as co-owners. The petitioners acquiring the property back from TDB did not terminate the existing co-ownership or alienate the respondents' rights as co-owners.

    Copyright:

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

    Spouses Primo Inalvez and Juliana Inalvez

    Uploaded by

    rose
    The Supreme Court ruled that co-ownership between the parties continued over the subject property, even after it was purchased by TDB and the title was transferred to TDB's name, and later purchased back by the petitioners. While TDB consolidated ownership over the property, it only held the property in trust for the respondents as co-owners. The petitioners acquiring the property back from TDB did not terminate the existing co-ownership or alienate the respondents' rights as co-owners.

    Copyright:

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

    SPOUSES PRIMO INALVEZ AND JULIANA INALVEZ, PETITIONERS, VS.

    BAYANG NOOL, ALLAN NOOL AND CELESTINO NOOL, RESPONDENTS.


    G.R. No. 188145, April 18, 2016

    FACTS: The petitioners' filed an action for recovery of possession grounded


    on their alleged exclusive ownership of the subject property which they
    merely purchased from Tarlac Development Bank (TDB). They contend that
    TDB's consolidation of ownership over the subject property effectively ended
    and terminated the co-ownership. The respondents, however, counter that
    they are co-owners of the subject property and their co-ownership was by
    virtue of their inheritance, which was registered in the names of the
    petitioners by way of an agreement. Bayang also asserted that she never
    sold her share to the petitioners and Zamora nor was she aware of any
    mortgage over the subject property.

    The trial court dismissed the respondents' claim of ownership over the
    subject property. CA reversed and set aside the RTC decision and dismissed
    the complaint for recovery of possession upon finding that a co-ownership
    existed between the parties.

    ISSUE: Whether co-ownership by the petitioners and the respondents over


    the subject property continued even after the subject property was
    purchased by TDB and title thereto transferred to its name, and even after it
    was eventually bought back by the petitioners from TDB.

    HELD: Yes. A co-owner does not lose his part ownership of a co-owned
    property when his share is mortgaged by another co-owner without the
    former's knowledge and consent as in the case at bar. The mortgage of the
    inherited property is not binding against co-heirs who never benefited.
    Petitioners' right in the subject property is limited only to their share in the
    co-owned property. When the subject property was sold to and consolidated
    in the name of TDB, the latter merely held the subject property in trust for
    the respondents. When the petitioners and Spouses Baluyot bought back the
    subject property, they merely stepped into the  shoes  of TDB  and  acquired
    whatever rights  and obligations appertain thereto.

    Be that as it may, the rights of the respondents as co-owners of the subject


    property were never alienated despite TDB's consolidation of ownership over
    the subject property. Neither does the fact that the petitioners succeeded in
    acquiring back the property from TDB and having a new title issued in their
    name terminate the existing co-ownership. Besides, it seems that petitioners
    knew of the fact that they did not have a title to the entire lot and could not,
    therefore, have validly mortgaged the same, because of the respondents'
    possession of the subject portion.

    You might also like