G.R. No.

189420 Case Digest

G.R. No. 189420, March 26, 2014
Raul Arambulo and Teresita Dela Cruz
vs Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy Nolasco
Ponente: Perez

Facts:

Petitioners, together with their siblings and their mother co-owned

a 233sq.m. Land in Tondo, Manila. When their mother died, she was
succeeded by her husband, Genero Nolasco and their children.

On January 8, 1999, petitioners filed a petition for relief

alleging that all co-owners, except for Nolasco, have authorized to
sell their respective shares to the properties, saying that in the
Civil Code, if one or more co-owners shall withhold their consent
to the alterations in the thing owned in common, the courts may
afford adequate relief.

Nolasco responded that they did not know about the intention to
sell, because they were not called to participate in the
negotiations regarding the sale of the property.

Issue: Whether the respondents are withholding their consent and

whether this withholding is prejudicial to the petitioners.

RTC: ruled in favor with petitioners and ordered Nolasco to give

their consent to sale.
Nolasco filed a notice of appeal to the CA.
CA: reversed the RTc decision, saying that the petitioners cannot
compel Nolasco to give their consent.

Held: CA was right.

From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a coowner is

entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property
by one coowner without the consent of the other coowners is not
null and void. However, only the rights of the coownerseller are
transferred, thereby making the buyer a coowner of the property.

To be a coowner of a property does not mean that one is deprived

of every recognition of the disposal of the thing, of the free use
of his right within the circumstantial conditions of such judicial
status, nor is it necessary, for the use and enjoyment, or the
right of free disposal, that the previous consent of all the
interested parties be obtained.