~epublic of tlJe ~bthppines

$,Upretne Qtourt
:§manila
SECOND DIVISION

SPOUSES BENNY and G.R. No. 246096

NORMITA ROL,
Petitioners, Present:

PERLAS-BERNABE. S.A .J.,

- versus - Chairperson,
GESMUNDO,
LAZARO-JAVIER,
ISABEL URDAS RACHO.* LOPEZ, and
Respondent. ROSARIO,** JJ.

Promulgated:

DECISION

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.:

Assailed in th is petition for review on cerhorari 1 are the Decision 2

dated September 13, 2018 and the Resolution 3 dated February 13, 2019 of the
Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G .R . CV No. 105722, which affirmed with
modification the Decision 4 dated July 8, 2015 and the Resolution 5 dated
Septernber 3, 2015 of the Regional Trial Court of Aparri, Cagayan, Branch 8
(RTC), and accordingly~ declared, inft:r alia, that the sale of Lot No. 1559 to
petitioners Spouses Benny and No rmit3. Roi (petitioners) is valid only insofar

/\iso referred to as "Isabel Urdas Ru~ho·· in snn;e part:, nfthe rullo.

" Desigmned Additional Member pe r Spec:ial Order No. '2797 dated N ovember 5, 20'.?.0.
Rn/lo, pp. 9- 17 .
Id. at 20-42. Pen11eu by Associate .Ju,-tice Maria Filnmenn D. Singh with /\ssoc1atc Justices Celia C.
Libreii-Lec1gogo and Samuel H. Gc1~rl:rn {now a mclllbcr or this Court), con~urring.
Id. at 43-48.
1
• CA rollo, pp. 35-5~. Penned by Presiding Ju dge Nicanor S. r,1scual, Jr.
Records. pp. 301-304.
Decision ')
C.R. No. 246096

as half of the aggregate undivided interest of Fausto Urdas, Sr. (Fausto), Chi ta
Urdas (Chita), and Maria Urdas Baclig (Maria) therein are concerned.

The Facts

Respondent Isabel Urdas Racho (lsabel) alleged that her brother, Loreto
Urdas (Loreto), was the registered owner of a 1,249-square meter (sq . m.)
parcel of land located in the Municipality of Gonzaga, Cagayan, denominated
as Lot No. 1559, as reflected in Original Certificate of Title No. 0-1061 .6 On
August 6, 1963, Loreto died without an issue, thus, leaving his siblings,
namely, Fausto, Chita, Maria, and Isabel as his intestate heirs to the said lot.
Sometime before the filing of the complaint, Isabel discovered that: (a) Lot
No. 1559 was subdivided into equal 624.50-sq. m. portions, denominated as
Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B; (b) despite Loreto's death in 1963, petitioners
made it appear that Loreto sold to them the subdivided lots through a Deed of
Absolute Sale of Portion of Registered Land7 dated September 1, 2006 and
Deed of Sale of a P01tion of Land8 dated June 19, 2012, respectively; and (c)
in light of the execution of said deeds, new titles covering the subdivided lots,
namely, Transfer Certificates of Title (TCT) Nos. T-156992 9 and 032-
2012004566 10 were issued in petitioners' names. As such, Isabel was
constrained to file a complai nt' 1 for reivindicacion and damages before the
RTC against, inter alia, petitioners.12

In their Answer with Counterclaim, 13 petitioners asserted that sometime

in 1993, they were looking to purchase a parcel of land. Coincidentally,
petitioners were able to meet Fausto' s wife and son. namely, Leoncia,'-1 and
Allan, who offered to sell thern one-half of Lot No. 1559 for ~25,000.00, to
which they agreed. Thus, on Septen,ber 13, 1993 Fausto, Clrita, Maria, and
Allan executed an Extra-Judicial Settlement with Sale 15 (EJSS) concerning
the subject lot whereby: (a) the subject lot was subdivided equally into two
(2) 624.50-sq. rn . po1tions, denominated as Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B; (h)
Lot No. 1559-A was adjudicated to Fausto, Chita, and Maria, who then sold
the same to petitioners for th e aforementioned amount; and (c) Lot No. 1559-
B was adjudicated to Allan . Thereafter, petitioners built a house on Lot No.
1559-A and occup ied the same peacefully. In 2010, petitioners purchased
from Allan and Leoncia Lof No. 1559-B, for which they executed a Deed of
Sale of a Portion of Land 16 dated September 26, 2011. According to
petitioners, they have been in open, continuous, and peaceful possession of

G
ld.atl6-17.
Id. at 2 1.
Id. at 23-24.
,, ld . al()_ I 0.
10
Id. al 12- 14.
11
ld.at4-8.
12
Io. Sec a lso rollo, pp. 21-23 .
11
· Record~, pp. 40-46.
11
- Sec id. at 150, 155, and 159.
" ld.at47.
16
lei. al 48-49.
 ...,
Decision .) G .R. No. 246096

Lot No. 1559-A s ince 1993 and Lot No. 1559-B since 20 l 0, until Isabel
disturbed the same by filing the instanl complaint in June 2013. 17

The RTC Ruling

In a Decis ion 18 dated Ju ly 8, 2015, the RTC ru led in Isabel's favor, and
accordingly, declared null and void the following: (a) the EJSS dated
September 13, 1993; (b) the Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land dated
September 26, 2011; (c) the Deed of Absolute Sale of Portion of Registered
Land dated September 1, 2006; and (d) the Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land
dated June 19, 2012. The RTC also ordered petitioners to reconvey to Isabel
the total area of 312.25-sq . m . from Lot No. 1559, and to pay her P5,646.00
as actual damages, f->30,000 .00 as attorney's fees, and the costs of suit. 19

T he RTC fou nd the Deeds of Sal e dated September I, 2006 and June
19, 2012 void for being forgeries, pointing out that there was no way Loreto
could have signed those instrum ents as he died in 1963 . It also declared void
the EJSS as it was executed w ithou t the knowledge and consent of one of
Loreto's intestate heirs, i.e., Isabel, and consequently, the Deed of Sale of a
Portion of Land dated September 26, 201 1 for being a subsequent transfer that
emanated from th e EJSS . Nonetheless, the RTC fo und petitioners to be
purchasers in good faith, opin ing that they acquired Lot No. 1559 for valuable
consideration, not knowing beforehand that their title thereto was a product of
fraud. As suc h, they are only required to reconvey to Isabel an area of 312.25-
sq. m. out of the total area of l ,249-sq . m. of Lot-No. 1559, in order to satisfy
the latter's share in Loreto's intestate estate.20

Petitioners filed a motion for reconsi deration which was, however,

denied in a Resolut"ion 2 1 dated September 3, 2015 . Aggrieved, petitioners
appealed to the CA.

The CA Ruling

ln a Decision22 dated September 13, 2018, the CA affirmed the RTC

ruling with modifications, in that: (a) the sale by Fausto, Chita, and Maria to
petitioners are valid and binding but on ly insofar as their respective undivided
interests in the half of Lot No. 1559 is concerned; and (b) the award of actual
damages to Tsabel was deleted.23

17 Id. al 40-46. See also rollo, pp. 23 -24.

18
CA mllo, pp. 3S-53.
19
Id. ot 52-53.
2
'' Id. a l 47-52.
21
Record~ , pp.30 1-304.
22 Rollo, pp. '.20-42.
23 · Id. al 41 .
Decision 4 G.R. No. 246096

Echoing the RTC, the CA declared void the EJSS, considering that,
;nter alia, Isabel, a legal heir to Loreto's intestate estate, was excluded
therefrom. As such, the CA rendered void the adjudication of Lot No. 1559-
B to Al Ian as he is not a legal heir to Loreto' s intestate estate; and
consequently, A llan's transfer of the same to petitioners through the Deed of
Sale of a Portion of Land dated September 26, 2011 is 1ikewise void, pursuant
to the maxim nemo dat quod non habet. Nonetheless, the CA deemed valid
the sale of Lot No. 1559-A to petitioners, but only insofar as Fausto, Chita,
and Maria's respective aliquot shares therein, i.e., a total area of 468.375-sq.
m., are concerned. Relatedly, the CA ruled that petitioners are buyers in bad
faith due to their failure to further inquire as to the capacity of Allan and
Leoncia to sell Lot No. 1559 and investigate the whereabouts of Loreto, the
registered owner thereof_'.2--1

Further, the CA held that Isabel is not gui lty of !aches because she was
deprived of her hereditary share without her knowledge and consent; and as
such, she is not barred from invoking her right to her inheritance in Loreto's
estate. 25

F inally, the CA deleted the award of actual damages in Isabel's favor

for her failure to show her entitlement thereto; but upheld the award of
attorney's fees and costs of suit in her favor as she was forced to litigate in
order to assert her ri ghts over Lot No. 1559. 26

Undaunted, petitioners moved for reconsideration but the same was

denied in a Resolution27 dated February 13, 2019; hence, the instant petition.

The Issue Before the Court

The core issue for the Court's resolution is whether or not the CA
correctly ruled that the conveyance of Lot No. 1559 to petitioners is null and
void, except as to the portion in Lot No. 1559-A pertaining to Fausto, Chita,
and Maria which is deemed valid.

The Court's Ruling

The petition is without merit.

Records show that there are a total of four (4) documents which
supposedly transferred the two (2) subdivided portions of Lot No. 1559,
namely, Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B, to petitioners. On the one hand, Isabel

2•1 Id. at '27-37.

25 Id. at 37-38.
26
ld. at38-4 1.
27
Id. ar 43-48.
Decision 5 G .R. No . 246096

alleged that the documents were the Deed of Absolute Sale of Portion of
Registered Land dated September 1, 2006 covering Lot No. 1559-A and the
Deed of Sale of a Portion of Land dated June 19, 2012 covering Lot No. 1559-
B, both purportedly executed by Loreto in favo r of petitioners. On the other
hand, petitioners anchor their claim of ownership on: (a) the EJSS dated
September 13, 1993 executed by Fausto, Chita, Maria, and Allan - which
adjudicated a half portion of Lot No. 1559, i.e., Lot No. 1559-A, to Fausto,
Chita, and Maria who thereafter sold it to petitioners, and adj udicated the other
half, i.e., Lot No. 1559-B to Allan; and (b) the Deed of Sale of a Portion of
Land dated September 26, 2011 executed by Al lan in favor of petitioners.

As for the documents pointed out by [sabel, suffice it to say that they
are nu ll and void fo r being forge ries, as it is simply impossible that Loreto,
who died in 1963, could have executed said documents in 2006 and 2012,
respectively. It is settled that fo rged deeds of sale are null and void and convey
no title. 28

As for the EJSS dated September 13, 1993, the CA correctly declared
the same to be nul1 and void, considering that it was executed w ithout the
knowledge and consent oflsabel, a co-heir of Fausto, Chita, and Maria, to the
estate of the ir deceased brother, Lorelo.~ 9 In a catena of cases, the Court had
consistently ruled that a deed of extrajudicial partition executed to the total
exclusion of any of the legal heirs, who had no knowledge of and consent to
the execution of the same, is fraudulent, v icious, and a total nullity ,30 as in this
case. As such, it produced no effect whatsoever either against or in favor of
anyone.3 1 Therefore, the contents of the EJSS, namely : (a) the subdivision of
Lot No. 1559 to two (2) equal halves, namely Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B;
and (b) alienation of the aforementioned halves, first, to petitioners with
consideration, and second, to Allan gratu itously, are null and void and cannot
be given any legal effect as well.

At this j uncture, it is well to reiterate that the subdivision of Lot No.

1559 into two (2) equal halves, i. e., Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B, as well as
the attempted conveya nce of these defin ite portions to petitioners and Allan,
resulted from the execution of the EJSS - which again, was w ithout the

28 See Tolentino v. Spouses latagan, 761 Ph il. 108, 13:2 (201~), citing Rufloe v. Bwgos, 597 Phil. 261,270
(2009).
29 See Articles 10(13 and 1004 of the Civi l Code, which respectively read:
Art. 1003 . tr there are no descendants, ascenda nts. illegitirnatc children, or c1 survivin g
spouse, the collateral relat ives shall surreecl to the entire est:ite or the deceased in
accordance with the fol lowing a1 ticles

Art. 1004. Should the 0nly surv ivors bt b10thcr'i and sisters or the full birh)d. they shall
inheri t in ,::qual shares.
Jo See Cn,: v. Cru:., G.R. Nr:i. 2 111 .53, l·ebniary 28, 70 18, 8.~6 SCRA 56'.?.; Tlw Roman Catholic Bishop of'
Tuguegaruo v. Prndcncio, 794 Phil. 462 ('.!O I (I): /V,m t'. Heirs rf J-!adj: Yusop U,r, 697 Ph ii. :2 l 7 (20 12);
Rei/lo v. San Jose. 6n? Phi l. 446 (2009); f't!dr,J\ u" r;t , 406 Phil. 167 (200 I); Segura 1•. Segura, 'J.47-/\
Phi l. 449 ( 1988); Villal11::. 1·. Nem,i•, I I'/ Phil. .2.'.' \1 %3).
31
See rul/Jdo ,,_ Grilli, 781 Phil. 840, 852 (20 I6), ,;iting The Manila Ranking C"rp. v. Silverio, 504 Ph il.
17. 10 (2005).
Decision 6 G.R. No. 246096

knowledge and consent of lsabel. In Cabrera v. Ysaac, 32 the Court held that a
sale of a definite po11ion of a co-owned property requires the consent of all
the co-owners. Without such unanimous consent, a co-owner can only convey
his undivided, aliquot interest over a co-owned property; he/she has no ri ght
to divide, and thereafter, convey definite portions thereof, viz.:

Tf the alienation precedes the partition, the co-owner cannot sell a

definite portion of the land without consent from his or her co-owners.
He or she could only sell the undivided interest of the co-owned
property. As summarized in Lope::. v. flus/re, "lilf he is the owner of an
undivided half of a tract of land, he has a right to sell and convey an
undivided half, but he h~,s no right to divide the lot into two parts, and
convey the whole of one part by metes and bounds."

The undivided interest of a co-owner is also rererred to as the " ideal

or abstract quota" or " proportionate share." On the other hand, the definite
portion of the land refers to specific metes and bounds of a co-owned
property.

To illustrate, if a ten-hectare property is owned equally by ten co-

owners, the undivided interest of a co-owner is one hectare. The definite
portion of that interest is usually determined during judicial or extrajudicial
partition. Arter partition, a definite portion of the property held in comrnon
is allocated to a specific co-owner. The co-ownership is dissolved and, in
effect, each of the former co-owners is free to exercise autonomously the
rights attached to his or her ownersh ip over the definite portion of the land.
rt is crucial that the co-owners agree to which portion of the land goes to
whom.

Hence, prior to partition, a sale of a definite portion of common

property requires the consent of all co-owners because it operates to
partition the land with respect to the co-owner selling his or her share.
The co-owner or seller is already marking which portion should
redound to his or her autonomous ownership upon future partition.

xxxx

The rules allow respondent to sell his undivided interest in the co-
ownershi p. However, this was not the object of the sale between him and
petitioner. The object of the sale was a definite portion. Even if it was
respondent who was benefiting from the fru its of the lease contract to
petitioner, respondent has "no right to sell or alienate a concrete, specific
or determinate part of the thing owned in common, because his right
over the thing is represented by quota or ideal portion without any
physical adjudication."33 (Emphases and underscoring supplied)

ln this case, when Loreto died, his siblings, namely, Fausto, Chita,
Maria, and Isabel all became co-owners of Loreto's intestate estate, i.e., Lot
No. 1559, pursuant to Article l 078 34 of the Civi l Code, with al l of them having

12
747 Phil. 187 (2014).
33 Id. at 206-207.
4
J Article 1078 of the C'ivil Code ,cads:
Decision 7 G.R. No. 246096

equal interest therein, i.e., ¼ of the property. Thus, for the alienation of
definite portions of Lot No. 1559 to be valid, it must be with the consent of
all of them . However, the alienations of definite portions made in the E.TSS
was without the knowledge and consent of Isabel, and hence, are null and
void.

Nonetheless, as co-owners of Lot No. 1559, Fausto, C hita, Maria, and

Isabel are free to dispose of their undivided aliquot shares therein, which shall
be limited to the portion that may be a llotted to them upon partition. 35
Otherwise stated, before an actual partition of an estate, an heir can only
alienate his successional rights or undivided interest thereto, and not specific
portions thereof.'.l 6

Thus, Fausto, Chita, and Maria could not sell a defin ite portion of an
undivided property, i. e., one half of Lot No. 1559 (which formerly pe1tained
to Lot No. 1559-A), to petitioners. However, the Court nevertheless
recognizes their intent to sell one-half (½) of their inchoate interest over Lot
No. 1559 to the latter - not through the EJSS but v ia an oral contract of sale;
as in fact, they were able to do so as they received proper compensation
therefor from petitioners. 37 T hus, petitioners were able to validly acquire one-
half (1/2) of Fausto, Chita, and Maria' s aggregate three-fourths (¼) interest, or
a total of 3 / 8 interest, over Lot No. 1559.

In the same vein, Fausto, Chita, and Maria could also not gratuitously
convey a definite portion of the same undivided property, i. e., one half of Lot
No. 1559 (which fon11erly pertained to Lot No. 1559-B) to Allan. In contrast,
however, to petitioner's case, the Court cou ld not give life to the three (3)
siblings' intent to convey one-half (½) of their inchoate interest over Lot No.
1559 to Allan, absent compliance with the requirements of the law. To
reiterate, the foregoing conveyance to Allan was made gratuitously, and
hence, essentially partakes of a donati on of a real property. As such, it is
required, inter alia, that the donation must be made in a publ ic instrument,
and that the acceptance is made either in the same deed or in a separate

Article I078. Where there are two or more hei rs, the whole estate of the decedent is, before
its partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of debts of the
deceased.
35 See Article 493 of the Civil Code, which reads:
Art. 493. Each co-owner shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and
benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, ass ign or mortgage it, and even
substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal ri ghts are involved. But
the effect of th e alienation or the mortgage, with respect to th e co-ow ners, shal l be limited
to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-
ownership.
36
See Heirs q( Jarque v. Jarq11e, G.R. N0. 196733, November 2 1, 2018, citing Carvajal v. CA, 197 Phil.
913, 915-916 ( 1982). See also PNl3 v. Garcia, 734 Ph ii. 623, 633-634(2014) and Acahal v. A cabal, 494
Phil. 528, 552 (2005).
37 "The elements of a contract of sale are. a] consent or meeting of the minds, that is, consent to trans fer
ownership in exchange for the price; bj determ inate subject matter; and c] price certain in money or its
equ ivalent." (Riosa v. Tabaco La Suerle Corporaliun, 7'20 Phil. 586,596(2013 ), citing David v. Misa111is
Occidental If Elr!c!ric Cooperative, Inc., 690 Ph ii. 718, 727 [201 2])
Decision 8 G.R. No. 246096

instrument. 38 Since the only document of record showing compliance with the
foregoing requirements is the EJSS - which is, as discussed, nul l and void -
f austo, Chita, and Mari a's donation over such portion to Allan is void as well.
Consequently, Allan and Leoncia' s sale of the same portion of land to
petitioners had no legal effect whatsoever, following the maxim nemo dat
quad non habet. 39 Hence, Fausto, Chita, and Maria are deemed to have
retained their remaining inchoate interest, i. e., 1/ 8 each, over Lot No. 1559.

Finally, since Isabel had no knowledge of, and thus, did not give her
consent to, the forego ing, she retai ns her ¼ inchoate interest over Lot No.
1559.

On a rel ated matter, petitioners cannot claim to be innocent purchasers

for value. According to jurisprudence, "An innocent purchaser fo r value refers
to someone who ' buys the property of another without notice that some other
person has a right to or interest in it, and who pays a full and fair price at the
time of the purchase or before receiving any noti ce of another person's
claim ."' 40 Here, the CA correctly pointed out that petitioners should have
already been put on guard as to the true ownership of the property when they
learned that it was registered in the name of another person w ith whom they
were not deali ng. Their failure to question the authority of the sellers thus
negated their claim that they were innocent purchasers for value.

F urthermore, petitioners' contention that Isabel is guilty of !aches is

unavailing. "Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonab le
and unexplained length of time to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done earli er; it is negligence or omi ssion to assert
a right w ithin a reasonable time, warranting a presumption that th e party
entitled to assert it either has abandoned it or declined to asse,t it." 41 In this
case, petitioners' self-serv ing allegation that Isabel knew of the sale of Lot
Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B to them fo r more than twenty (20) years was not
substantiated by evidence on record. Absent any clear and convincing proof,
lsabel's claim cannot be said to be barred by laches.

To summarize the forego ing discussions, in view of the nullity of the

EJSS, the subdivision of Lot No. 1559 equally to Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-

n " In order that a donat ion ofan immovable property be valid, the following elements must be present: (a)
the essential reduction of th e patrimony of the donor; (b) the increase in the patrimony of the clonee; (c)
the intent to do an act of liberality or a11i11111s donandi; (cl) the donation must be contained in a public
docum ent; and e) that the acceptance thereof be made in the same deed or in a separate public instrum ent;
ir acceptance is made in a separate instrument, the donor must be 110 1ifiecl thereof in an authentic form,
lo be noted in both instruments." (See ?'he tvlissianwy Sisters ofOur Lac/11 of Fatima v. Al:ona, G.R. No.
224307, August 6, 2018, citing Heirs uf"F/nrencio ,,. !leirs o(De Leon, 469 Phil. 459, 474 12004J. See
also Article 749 of the Civi l Code)
39
See lfeirs u/Sa/vadur Hermosilla"· Spouses Re111,Jquillo, 542 Phil. 390, 397 (2007).
0
·' Leong v. See, 749 Phil. 3 14, 324-37.5 (10 14), citing :'>'pauses Villamil v. Vil/arasa, 602 Phil. 932. 94 1
(2009).
11
• Pangasinan v Disunglo-Alma:ora, 762 Phil. 4'>1, 502-503 (20 15), citing 1\1/etropolitan Bank and Trust
Company v. Centro Develop111e111 Cr'rporalion, 687 Phil. 304, 3 17 (20 12).
Decision 9 G.R. No. 246096

B should be invalidated as well. Furthermore, the following have an interest

over the said lot, namely: petitioners, with 3/ 8 interest; Isabel, with 1/4 interest;
and Fausto, Chita, and Maria, with 1/ 8 interest each.

As a fi nal point, however, it is equally in1portant to point out that since

the EJSS is invalidated, it is as if Loreto's intestate, which includes Lot No.
1559, has yet to undergo proper settlement proceedings in accordance with
prevailing law. Thus, while Loreto's heirs, namely, Fausto, Chita, Maria, and
Isabel, have indeed acquired rights over Lot No. 1559 at the exact moment of
Loreto's death 42 - and consequently, may convey such rights to third parties,
such as what happened in this case when Fausto, Chita, and Maria sold their
rights over the prope1ty to petitioners - what they have are only inchoate rights
over the said lot. Otherwise stated, absent any proper settlement proceeding
for L oreto 's estate due to the nullity of the EJSS, the ownership of Lot No.
1559 remains in the said estate, with the aforementioned parties only hav ing
inchoate interests therein. 43

Accordingly, Lot No. 1559 should revert back to Loreto's estate, and
only the parti es' respective inchoate interests should be recognized in this
case. In particular, these inchoate interests over Lot No. 1559 are as follows:
petitioners, with 3/ 8 interest; Isabel, with ¼ interest; and Fausto, Chita, and
Maria, with 1/ 8 interest each. It goes without saying that each of them are free
to resort to the available remedies in order to settle Loreto's intestate estate,
and subsequently, distribute/partition the property under prevailing laws,
rules, and jurisprudence.

WHEREFORE, the pet1t1on is DENIED. The Decision dated

September 13, 2018 and the Resolution dated February 13, 2019 of the Court
of Appeals in CA-G .R. CV No. I 05722 are AFFIRMED with
MODIFICATIONS, as fo llows:

(a) The subdivision of Lot No. 1559 to Lot Nos. 1559-A and 1559-B
is hereby DECLARED NULL and VOID; and

42
Article 777 of the Civil Code reads:
Article 777. The rights lo the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the
decedent.
•13 "Article 1078 of the Civil Code provides that where there are two or more heirs, th e whole estate of the
decedent is, he/ore partition, owned in common by such heirs, subject to the payment of the debts of the
deceased. Under a co-ownership, the ownership o r an undivided th ing or right belongs to different
persons. Each co-owner of property which is held pro indiviso exercises his rights over the whole
property and may use and enjoy the same with no other limitation than that he shall not injure the interests
of his co-owners. The underlying rationale is that until a div ision is made, the respective share of each
cannot be determ ined and every co-owner exercises, together with his co-participants, joint ownership
over the pro indiviso properly, in add ition to his use and enjoyment of the same.

A Ithough the righ t of an heir over the property or the decedent is inchoate as long as the estate has not
been fully settled and partitioned, the law allows a co-owner to exercise rights of ownership over such
inchoate right." (Alejandrina v. CA, 356 Phil. 851 I 1998]. Sec also Flora"· Prado, 465 Phil. 334, 344
['.W04]; Silverio, Jr. v. CA, 6 16 Phi l. I, 12 [2009"1; t,l11[ja110 v. Alty. Amanle, 745 Ph il. 40, 49-50 [2014);
:md see A11g11s/o v. Dy, G.R. No. 2 I873 1, Febru ary 13, 20 I9)
Decision 10 CLR. No. 246096

(b) Ownership over Lot No. 1559 is RECONVEYED back to the

intestate estate of Loreto Urdas. Fu1thermore, the following are
declared to have inchoate interests over the same:

(i) petitioners Benny and Normita Roi, to 31s of Lot No. 1559;
(ii) respondent Isabel Urdas Racho, to¼ of Lot No. 1559;
(ii i) Fausto Urdas, Sr., to 1lsofLotNo. 1559;
(iv) C hita Urdas, to 11s of Lot No. 1559; and
(v) Maria Urdas Baclig, to 11s of Lot No. 1559.

The rest of the ruling STANDS.

SO ORDERED.

ESTELA M~R~RNABE
Senior Associate Justice

WE CONCUR:

Cvn .. A A
f,_,_~{),~ Ofn,w,

AM ~~AVIER
· ssociate Justice

OSARIO
Assoc ate Justice

ATTESTATION

l attest that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of th e opinion of the
Court's D ivis ion.

ESTELA M.;a,~ERNABE
Senior Associate Justice
Chairperson, Second D iv ision
Decision 11 G .R. No. 246096

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIJl of the Const itution, and the
D ivision Chairperson's Attestation, l certify that the conclusions in the above
Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the
writer of the opinion of the Court's D ivisiion.