Torres v. Lapinid
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Petitioners filed a Complaint for the nullification of a deed of sale executed by respondent Jesus Velez in favor of respondent Lorenzo Lapinid, praying for the recovery of possession and ownership of a portion of Lot No. 4389, a co-owned property. Petitioners alleged that Jesus Velez sold a definite portion of the co-owned property without notice to them, violating a compromise agreement that authorized Jesus, Mariano Velez, and Vicente Torres, Jr. to sell the properties and distribute the proceeds. Jesus Velez admitted the partition case and the existence of a compromise agreement but claimed that Lot No. 4389 was already adjudicated to his group via a motion signed by co-owners prior to the compromise agreement, and that he had already acquired majority shares (73%) in the lot. Lapinid admitted the deed of sale for 3000 square meters but insisted on its validity, presenting deeds of sale showing Jesus Velez as majority owner. He denied acquiring a specific portion and stated he was permitted to occupy a portion not exceeding 3000 square meters, conditioned on the partition outcome. A forcible entry case filed by petitioners against Lapinid was dismissed, with the Municipal Trial Court ruling that Lapinid was a buyer in good faith. Procedural History: The Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the complaint, nullifying the site assignment in the deed of sale but upholding the validity of the sale itself, stating the exact location needed determination. The Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC decision, validating the sale and ruling that the compromise agreement did not affect the prior sale. The CA also dismissed the claim for rental payments, attorney's fees, and litigation expenses. The Petition: Petitioners appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that Lapinid, as Jesus Velez's successor-in-interest, was bound by the 2001 compromise agreement. They also contended that the sale of a definite portion of a co-owned property without notice rendered the entire deed of sale null and void.
Issue(s)
Whether the sale of a portion of a co-owned property by one co-owner to a third person, prior to partition, is valid. Whether the compromise agreement entered into by the co-owners affected the validity of the prior sale between Jesus Velez and Lorenzo Lapinid. Whether Lorenzo Lapinid is liable for rental payments to the other co-owners.
Ruling
The petition is denied. The Decision and Resolution of the Court of Appeals are affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the validity of the sale of a portion of a co-owned property by one co-owner to a third person, prior to partition: The Supreme Court affirmed the validity of the sale. Citing Article 493 of the Civil Code, the Court held that a co-owner has the absolute ownership of his undivided share and the right to alienate it. Even if the disposition involves a definite or concrete portion of the co-owned property before partition, the sale is not rendered void. Instead, the effect of the alienation is limited to the portion that may be allotted to the vendor in the partition. The vendee steps into the shoes of the vendor as a co-owner, acquiring a proportionate abstract share in the property held in common. The Court reiterated that the binding force of a contract must be recognized as far as legally possible, applying the principle "Quando res non valet ut ago, valeat quantum valere potest." Thus, Lapinid validly obtained the rights of Jesus Velez as a co-owner from the date of the sale's perfection. On whether the compromise agreement affected the validity of the prior sale: The Court ruled that the compromise agreement did not affect the already accrued right of ownership of Lapinid. The compromise agreement, which stipulated that the co-owners would sell the properties and divide the proceeds, was entered into on August 13, 2001. However, Lapinid had already become a co-owner on November 9, 1997, when the sale was perfected. Since Lapinid was not a party to the compromise agreement, it could not affect his ideal and undivided share. The Court emphasized the principle of nemo dat quod non habet (no one can give what he does not have), stating that the petitioners could not sell Lapinid's share without his consent. The sale by a co-owner affects only his own share, not those of other co-owners who did not consent. On whether Lorenzo Lapinid is liable for rental payments to the other co-owners: The Supreme Court found the claim for rental payments unacceptable. From the execution of the sale, Lapinid became a co-owner vested with the right to enjoy the property held in common, as provided by Articles 486 and 493 of the Civil Code. Each co-owner may use the thing owned in common, provided it is in accordance with its purpose and does not injure the interests of co-ownership or prevent other co-owners from using it. The Court held that it would be absurd to order a co-owner to pay rental payments to other co-owners. Lapinid's right of enjoyment over the property must be respected as long as he uses it for its intended purpose and does not prejudice the co-ownership.
Main Doctrine
A co-owner may validly alienate his undivided and pro indiviso share in a co-owned property, even before partition. The effect of such alienation, with respect to other co-owners, is limited to the portion that may be allotted to the vendor in the division upon termination of the co-ownership. The sale of a definite portion before partition does not render the sale void but affects only the vendor's proportionate share, subject to the results of the partition.