Tabasondra v. Constantino
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: The underlying dispute concerns three parcels of land co-owned by siblings Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana Tabasondra. Cornelio died intestate in 1991, and Valentina and Valeriana died intestate in 1990 and 1998, respectively. Their heirs, the petitioners and respondents, became co-owners of the property. The controversy arose when the respondents, claiming to have acquired the shares of Valentina and Valeriana through a Deed of Absolute Sale dated August 18, 1982, refused to grant the petitioners a share in the property's fruits and refused to partition the land. 2. Procedural History: The plaintiffs-appellees (petitioners herein) filed a complaint for partition and accounting on August 22, 2002, against the defendants-appellants (respondents herein). The Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 64, in Tarlac City, ordered the partition of all three parcels of land among the heirs. The respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On November 30, 2010, the CA modified the RTC's decision, limiting the partition and accounting to only the unsold portion of the property with an area of 33,450.66 square meters, recognizing the alienation of the shares of Valentina and Valeriana. The CA denied the petitioners' motion for reconsideration on April 4, 2011. 3. The Petition: The petitioners filed a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, raising issues of grave abuse of discretion and arguing that the CA erred in dismissing their motion for reconsideration and in declaring the Deed of Absolute Sale valid. They contend that the CA's decision is contrary to law, jurisprudence, and the evidence presented. The core of their argument is that the CA should not have limited the partition to only a portion of the property and should have considered the validity of the sale of the shares of Valentina and Valeriana.
Issue(s)
Whether the Court of Appeals acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction in summarily dismissing the new matters raised in the motion for reconsideration. Whether the Court of Appeals erred in declaring the Deed of Sale valid and what is the effect on partition and accounting. What is the proper procedure for partition.
Ruling
The Supreme Court affirmed with modification the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that the alienation of pro indiviso shares by Valentina and Valeriana in favor of Sebastian and Tarcila was valid. The Court remanded the case to the RTC for the proper identification and segregation, by metes and bounds, of the specific portions of the property assigned to each co-owner, and for the physical partition thereof. The accounting of fruits was limited to the one-third portion of the property still under co-ownership among all parties.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of grave abuse of discretion: The Court of Appeals' actions regarding the motion for reconsideration are not explicitly addressed in the provided ratio decidendi. Therefore, this issue is not directly supported by the provided text. On the validity of the Deed of Sale and the scope of partition and accounting: The Court upheld the right of Valentina and Valeriana to alienate their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila, citing Article 493 of the Civil Code, limiting the effect to the portion allotted to the seller upon termination of co-ownership. Consequently, the petitioners, as successors-in-interest of Cornelio, could not assail the alienation. The Court also found that the RTC erred in ordering the partition of the entire property; only the unsold one-third was subject to partition among Cornelio's heirs. Upon partition, there must be a mutual accounting for benefits received and reimbursements for expenses made, as per Article 500 of the Civil Code. On the procedure for partition: The Court noted that while the CA correctly identified the co-owners and the extent of their shares, it did not segregate the property into determinate portions. The Court emphasized the need to remand the case to the RTC for the identification and segregation of the property by metes and bounds, in accordance with Section 11, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court. This ensures that each party is assigned their specific portion in severalty. If the parties cannot agree on the partition, commissioners should be appointed to make the partition as directed by the Court.
Main Doctrine
Co-owners have the right to alienate their pro indiviso shares in a common property even without the consent of other co-owners, as the effect of such alienation is limited to the portion that may be allotted to the seller upon partition. The partition and accounting, however, must be limited to the unsold portion of the property.