Anda di halaman 1dari 2

Tuason vs. Tuason Jr. and Gregorio Araneta, Inc., 88 Phil.

428 , April 02, 1951 (7) Case Title : ANGELA I. TUASON, plaintiff and appellant, vs. ANTONIO TUASON, JR., and GREGORIO ARANETA, INC., defendants and appellees., ANTONIO C. TORRES, petitioner and appellant vs. EDUARDO QUINTOS, respondent and appellee. Case Nature : APPEAL from a judgment of the Court of First Instance of Manila. Pea, J. Syllabi Class : COMMUNITY PROPERTY|QUO WARRANTO|PARTITION Syllabi: 1. COMMUNITY PROPERTY; PARTITION; RESCISSION.A contract among land co-owners wherein they agreed to fill their property, construct roads therein and then subdivide it into small lots for sale, the proceeds to be later divided among them, and to this end one of them was to finance the whole development and subdivision, to prepare a schedule of prices and conditions of sale subject to the approval of the other two co-owners, to sell the subdivided lots and execute the corresponding contracts with buyers, and to receive 50 per cent of the gross selling price of the lots and the rents that may be collected from the property while in the process of sale, the remaining 50 per cent to be divided in equal portions among the three co-owners,does not violate article 400 of the Civil Code. Far from violating the prohibition against a co-owner being obliged to remain a party to the community, the contract precisely has for its purpose and object the dissolution of the co-ownership and of the community by selling the parcel held in common and dividing the proceeds of the sale among the co- owners. The obligation imposed in the contract to preserve the co-ownership until all the lots shall have been sold is a mere incident to the main object of dissolving the co-ownership. 2. QUO WARRANTO; PERIOD FOR FILING.An action against an officer for his ouster from office must be commenced within one year after the cause of such ouster, or the right of the plaintiff to hold office, arose. 3. QUO WARRANTO; PENDENCY OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY DOES NOT SUSPEND PERIOD FOR FILING.The pendency of an administrative remedy does not suspend the period within which a petition for quo warranto should be filed. While it may be desirable that administrative remedies be first resorted to, no one is compelled or bound to do so; and as said remedies neither are prerequisite to, nor bar, the institution of quo warranto proceedings, it follows that he who claims the right to hold a public office allegedly usurped by another and who desires to seek redress in the courts, should file the proper judicial action within the reglementary period. Public interest requires that the right to a public office should be determined as speedily as practicable.

Docket Number: No. L-3404, G. R. No. L-3304 Counsel: Alcuaz & Eiguren, Araneta & Araneta, Roman A. Cruz, Quijano & Alidio Ponente: MONTEMAYOR, PARS Dispositive Portion: In view of the foregoing, the decision appealed from is hereby affirmed. There is no pronouncement as to costs. So ordered. The appealed judgment is hereby affirmed with costs against the petitioner-appellant. So ordered.