FACTS:
This case involves a dispute over a 219-square-meter lot in Mambaling, Cebu City. The lot was owned by the late spouses Jacinto Alejandrino and Enrica Labunos, who left it to their six children. Petitioner Mauricia Alejandrino allegedly purchased portions of the property from her siblings, giving her a total area of 97.43 square meters. On the other hand, a third party named Licerio Nique also purchased portions of the property, totaling 121.67 square meters. Laurencia Alejandrino, who allegedly sold most of the 121.67 square meters to Nique, later questioned the sale. The trial court ruled in favor of Nique, declaring him as the owner of Laurencia's share and the shares of other siblings. Meanwhile, Mauricia filed a complaint for redemption and recovery of properties against Nique. The trial court admitted Mauricia's amended complaint and ordered Nique to file an amended answer. In the meantime, Nique filed a motion for segregation of the portion of the property declared as his own by the trial court. The trial court granted the motion for segregation.
Another set of facts shows that Mauricia claimed ownership of 73 square meters, while Licerio claimed ownership of 146 square meters. Mauricia and her sister Laurencia had previously entered into an extrajudicial settlement of the estate, dividing the land between themselves. The agreement was signed but not notarized. The court's decision ordered Mauricia to surrender the property to Licerio, including Laurencia's portion. The court granted Licerio's motion to segregate his 146 square meters from the land.
In a separate case, Mauricia filed a complaint for recovery of possession and damages against Lachica, alleging that Lachica illegally occupied a portion of her land. The trial court ruled in favor of Mauricia, and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with modification. The Court of Appeals clarified that Lachica's possession only pertained to the portion actually sold to him by Laurencia and did not affect Mauricia's claimed portion. Mauricia filed a motion for reconsideration, but it was denied. She then filed a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court challenging the decision of the Court of Appeals.
ISSUES:
-
Whether or not the lower court acted beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the segregation of the property bought by the private respondent, which was not decreed in its judgment that had already become final and executory.
-
Whether a co-owner can alienate his or her pro indiviso share in a co-owned property without the consent of the other co-owners.
-
Whether the partition of the estate can be ordered in an action for quieting of title.
-
Whether the oral agreement among the heirs for the sale of a lot and distribution of its proceeds is a valid contract.
-
Whether the extrajudicial settlement of estate executed by two heirs validly partitioned the property.
-
Whether the order for segregation of the property is valid.
-
Whether the petitioner is guilty of forum shopping.
RULING:
-
The Supreme Court held that the lower court did not act beyond its jurisdiction in ordering the segregation of the property. The Court ruled that there was no deprivation of property without due process of law since the segregation did not affect the portion of the land that properly pertained to the petitioner. The Court also clarified that in cases of ambiguity in the dispositive portion of a decision, the court may amend it even after final judgment to clarify the exact location of the property. The Court further held that the petitioner is estopped from questioning the decision and filing the instant petition because she had knowledge of the previous case where res judicata had set in. Therefore, the writs of certiorari and prohibition do not lie in this case.
-
Yes, a co-owner can alienate his or her pro indiviso share in a co-owned property without the consent of the other co-owners. However, the buyer only acquires the rights of the co-owner-seller and becomes a co-owner of the property. The sale does not transfer the shares of the other co-owners.
-
No, the partition of the estate cannot be ordered in an action for quieting of title. The estate can only be partitioned by the heirs extrajudicially, by the court in an ordinary action for partition or in the course of administration proceedings, by the testator himself, or by a third person designated by the testator.
-
The oral agreement among the heirs for the sale of a lot and distribution of its proceeds is a valid contract. It has the force of law between the parties and no one can withdraw or oppose its execution without the consent of all.
-
The extrajudicial settlement of estate executed by two heirs validly partitioned the property. The deed of extrajudicial settlement evidenced their intention to partition the property, and the document was duly considered by the court as evidence.
-
The order for segregation of the property is valid. It is a reiteration and clarification of the partition of the property by the heirs and a necessary step for the proper execution of the court's decision.
-
The petitioner is not guilty of forum shopping. The two cases involved different causes of action and the parties were not identical. The alleged connection between the counsels does not prove misconduct or forum shopping.
PRINCIPLES:
-
The ownership of an undivided thing or right in a co-ownership belongs to different persons, who exercise joint ownership over the pro indiviso property (Civil Code, Article 1078).
-
Each co-owner may exercise rights of ownership over the inchoate right of an heir to the property before the estate has been fully settled and partitioned (Civil Code, Article 493).
-
Alienation of a pro indiviso portion of inherited property is governed by the Civil Code, particularly Article 1088, which allows co-heirs to be subrogated to the rights of the purchaser by reimbursing him for the price of the sale (Civil Code, Article 1088).
-
A co-owner has the right to alienate his or her pro indiviso share in a co-owned property without the consent of the other co-owners. However, the sale only transfers the rights of the co-owner-seller, not the shares of the other co-owners.
-
The proper action in cases where a co-owner sells the entire property without the consent of the other co-owners is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recovery of possession, but for the division of the common property among the co-owners.
-
Partition of the estate of a decedent can be done extrajudicially by the heirs themselves, by the court in an ordinary action for partition or in the course of administration proceedings, by the testator himself, or by a designated third person.
-
Notarization of a deed of extrajudicial settlement of estate makes it a public document that can bind third parties. However, the absence of notarization does not invalidate the settlement as regards the parties involved.
-
The partition of inherited property does not need to be embodied in a public document. The validity of an oral contract among the heirs terminating the co-ownership has been recognized.
-
Oral agreements among heirs for the sale and distribution of property are valid and binding.
-
A deed of extrajudicial settlement can validly partition property among heirs.
-
A court order for segregation of property may be valid and necessary for the proper execution of a decision.
-
Forum shopping requires identical parties, subject matter, and causes of action in two cases. The involvement of the same counsel does not automatically constitute forum shopping, especially if the parties have conflicting claims and present a united stand against another party.