[79] Arambulo v.

Nolasco ● Article 498, CC (see footnotes)

G.R. No. 189420 | March 26, 2014 | J. Perez
FACTS:
TOPIC: Co-Ownership – Special Rules – Conjugal Property ● Petitioners [Raul V. Arambulo and Teresita A. Dela Cruz, along with their
mother Rosita Vda. De Arambulo, and siblings Primo V. Arambulo, Ma.
SUMMARY: Lorenza A. Lopez, Ana Maria V. Arambulo, Maximiano V. Arambulo, Julio V.
There is a mother and her 8 children, who all co-own a 233 sq. m. lot in Tondo (so each Arambulo and Iraida Arambulo Nolasco (Iraida)] are co-owners of two (2)
has a 1/9 share). When one of her daughters passed away, her share was succeeded parcels of land located in Tondo, Manila, with an aggregate size of 233 square
by her husband and 3 children (so each owns 1/4 of her 1/9 share). The mother and meters.
the 7 children wanted to sell their respective shares, except for the daughter’s family. ● When Iraida passed away, she was succeeded by her husband, respondent
They went to Court for adequate relief under Art. 491, alleging that the respondents are Genaro Nolasco and their children, Iris Abegail Nolasco, Ingrid Aileen
withholding their consent. RTC granted this, but CA reversed, saying that the applicable Arambulo and respondent Jeremy Spencer Nolasco.
rule is Article 493. SC affirms CA’s decision. ● January 8, 1999: Petitioners filed a petition for relief under Article 491 of the
Civil Code with the RTC of Manila, alleging that:
DOCTRINE: (1) all of the co-owners, except for respondents, have authorized
● The sale by the petitioners of their parts shall not affect the full ownership by petitioners to sell their respective shares to the subject properties;
the respondents of the part that belongs to them. Their part which petitioners (2) that only respondents are withholding their consent to the sale of
will sell shall be that which may be apportioned to them in the division upon their shares;
the termination of the co-ownership. With the full ownership of the (3) that in case the sale pushes through, their mother and siblings will
respondents remaining unaffected by petitioners’ sale of their parts, the get their respective 1/9 share of the proceeds of the sale, while
nature of the property, as co-owned, likewise stays. respondents will get 1/4 share each of the 1/9 share of Iraida;
● A sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other (4) that the sale of subject properties constitutes alteration; and
co-owners is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller (5) that under Article 491 of the Civil Code, if one or more co-owners
are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property. shall withhold their consent to the alterations in the thing owned in
common, the courts may afford adequate relief.4
RELEVANT PROVISIONS: ● In their Answer, respondents sought the dismissal of the petition for being
● Article 491, CC: None of the co-owners shall, without the consent of the others, premature. Respondents averred that they were not aware of the intention of
make alterations in the thing owned in common, even though benefits for all petitioners to sell the properties they co-owned because they were not called
would result therefrom. However, if the withholding of the consent by one or to participate in any negotiations regarding the disposition of the property.
more of the co-owners is clearly prejudicial to the common interest, the courts ● September 19, 2002: RTC ruled in favor of petitioners1 and ordered
may afford adequate relief. (397a) respondents to give their consent to the sale.
● Article 493, CC. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of o They found that respondents’ withholding of their consent to the sale
the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, is prejudicial to the common interest of the co-owners.
assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, ● October 7, 2008: CA granted the appeal and reversed RTC.
except when personal rights are involved. But the effect of the alienation or o They held that the respondents had the full ownership of their
the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion undivided interest in the subject properties, thus, they cannot be
which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co- compelled to sell their undivided shares in the properties.
ownership. o It referred to the provisions of Article 493 of the Civil Code.
● Article 494, CC (see footnotes)

1 WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of the petitioners and against c.) Maximiano V. Arambulo -1/9
d.) Ana Maria V. Arambulo -1/9
the respondents: e.) Ma. Lorenza A. Lopez -1/9
1.Directing respondents Genaro Nolasco and Jeremy Spencer A. Nolasco to give their consent to f.) Julio V. Arambulo -1/9
the sale of their shares on the subject properties; g.) Raul V. Arambulo -1/9
2.Allowing the sale of the aforementioned properties; h.) Teresita A. dela Cruz -1/9
3.Directing the petitioners and the co-owners, including the respondents herein to agree with the i.) Genaro Nolasco, Jr. -1/4 of 1/9
price in which the subject properties are to be sold and to whom to be sold; and j.) Jeremy Spencer A. Nolasco -1/4 of 1/9
4.Directing the distribution of the proceeds of the sale of the aforementioned properties in the k.) Iris Abegail A. Nolasco -1/4 of 1/9
following proportion: l.) Ingrid Aileen Arambulo -1/4 of 1/97
a.) Rosita V. Vda. De Arambulo -1/9
b.) Primo V. Arambulo -1/9
 o However, CA also observed that petitioners failed to show how ● There is co-ownership whenever, as in this case, the ownership of an
respondents’ withholding of their consent would prejudice the undivided thing, belongs to different persons.
common interest over the subject properties. o Article 493 of the Code defines the ownership of the co-owner,
● Hence, the instant petition. clearly establishing that each co-owner shall have full ownership of
● Petitioners’ Arguments: his part and of its fruits and benefits.
o Under Article 491, they may ask the court to afford them adequate o Their part which petitioners will sell shall be that which may be
relief should respondents refuse to sell their respective shares to the apportioned to them in the division upon the termination of the co-
co-owned properties. ownership.
o They refute the appellate court’s finding that they failed to show how o With the full ownership of the respondents remaining unaffected by
the withholding of consent by respondents becomes prejudicial to petitioners’ sale of their parts, the nature of the property, as co-
their common interest. owned, likewise stays.
o They assert that one of the two subject properties has an area of 122 o In lieu of the petitioners, their vendees shall be co-owners with the
sq. m. and if they decide to partition, instead of selling the same, their respondents. The text of Article 493 says so.
share would be reduced to a measly 30 sq. m. lot each. ● As early as 1923, this Court has ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole
o The other property was testified to as measuring only 111 sq. m. property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the
o Petitioners reiterate that all the other co-owners are willing to sell the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale.
property and give their share of the proceeds of the sale. o The sale or other disposition affects only his undivided share and the
transferee gets only what would correspond to his grantor in the
ISSUE: partition of the thing owned in common.
W/N respondents, as co-owners, can be compelled by the court to give their consent to o From the foregoing, it may be deduced that since a co-owner is
the sale of their shares in the co-owned properties. entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by
one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owners is not null
HOLDING/RATIONALE: NO. and void.
SC: First, the issue has to be removed out of the coverage of Article 491. o However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred,
● It does not apply to the problem arising out of the proposed sale of the thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.
property co-owned by the parties in this case. ● The ultimate authorities in civil law, recognized as such by the Court, agree
● CA correctly applied the provision of Article 493 of the Civil Code. that co-owners such as respondents have over their part, the right of full and
● The very initiatory pleading below was captioned Petition For Relief Under absolute ownership.
Article 491 of the New Civil Code. o Such right is the same as that of individual owners which is not
● Petitioners filed the case on the submission that Article 491 covers the diminished by the fact that the entire property is co- owned with
petition and grants the relief prayed for, which is to compel the respondent co- others.
owners to agree to the sale of the co-owned property. o That part which ideally belongs to them, or their mental portion, may
● That a sale constitutes an alteration as mentioned in Article 491 is an be disposed of as they please, independent of the decision of their
established jurisprudence. co-owners.
o Alterations include any act of strict dominion or ownership and any o Insofar as the sale of co-owned properties is concerned, there is no
encumbrance or disposition has been held implicitly to be an act of common interest that may be prejudiced should one or more of the
alteration. Alienation of the thing by sale of the property is an act of co-owners refuse to sell the co-owned property, which is exactly the
strict dominion. factual situation in this case.
● However, the ruling that alienation is alteration does not mean that a sale of o When respondents disagreed to the sale, they merely asserted their
commonly owned real property is covered by Article 491, such that if a co- individual ownership rights. Without unanimity, there is no common
owner withholds consent to the sale, the courts, upon a showing of a clear interest.
prejudice to the common interest, may, as adequate relief, order the grant of ● Petitioners who project themselves as prejudiced co-owners may bring a suit
the withheld consent. for partition, which is one of the modes of extinguishing co-ownership with
respect to Article 4942 and Article 4983.
SC: CA’s reversal of RTC, correctly relying on Article 493, is affirmed.

2 Article 494 of the Civil Code provides that no co-owner shall be obliged to remain in the co-ownership, and 3 Corollary to this rule, Article 498 of the Civil Code states that whenever the thing is essentially indivisible and
that each co-owner may demand at any time partition of the thing owned in common insofar as his share is the co-owners cannot agree that it be allotted to one of them who shall indemnify the others, it shall be sold
concerned. and its proceeds accordingly distributed.
RULING:
The petition is DENIED without prejudice to the filing of an action for partition. The CA
Decision is AFFIRMED.