
CORONEL v. CONSTANTINO- Sale of an Undivided Interest of a Property
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
CORONEL v. CONSTANTINO- Sale of an Undivided Interest of a Property
Sale of an undivided interest of a property only binds the co-owner only up to the portion of his/her interest; consequently he/she can only transfer ownership over the same to other parties.
FACTS:
The disputed property was originally owned by Honoria Aguinaldo. One half was inherited by Emilia Coronel together with her sons Benjamin, Catalino and Cerefino, all surnamed Coronel. The other half was inherited by Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso. Emilia sold her share of the lot to Jess C Santos and Priscilla Bernardo as evidenced by the “KASULATAN NG BILIHANG PATULUYAN.” Santos and Bernardo then sold it to the respondents. Petitioners built several constructions and improvements on the disputed lot. Respondents then filed a complaint for declaration of ownership, quieting of title and damages with prayer for writ of mandatory and/or prohibitory injunction with the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale was valid? If yes, up to what extent?
RULING:
YES, only up to ¼ share of the land inherited by Emilia and her sons. Emilia signed only in her behalf and not in representation of her three children thus the sale is only binding to her share. The subject property was co-owned, pro-indiviso by petitioner Emilia together with her petitioner sons. No proof was presented to show that the co-ownership that existed among the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino and herein petitioners as never been terminated. No evidence was presented to show that the three brothers were aware of the sale made by their mother. Since there was no partition made, Emilia is deemed to have sold only her share of the lot which is ¼ thereof. Consequently SC declared respondents as owner of ½ undivided portion of the original lot which they inherited plus ¼ share (of their ½) of petitioner Emilia Coronel.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
- CHUA-BURCE V. CA (possession by a bank teller is possession of the bank itself; mere custodian) -
- LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- Possession -
- SOMODIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS- Accion interdictal -
- RAMOS VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- Adverse Possession -
- HEIRS OF SORIANO V. CA and SPOUSES ABALOS- Land Registration -
Additional Law Reading:
CORONEL v. CONSTANTINO- Sale of an Undivided Interest of a Property
Category: Property, Ownership and Its Modifications
CORONEL v. CONSTANTINO- Sale of an Undivided Interest of a Property
Sale of an undivided interest of a property only binds the co-owner only up to the portion of his/her interest; consequently he/she can only transfer ownership over the same to other parties.
FACTS:
The disputed property was originally owned by Honoria Aguinaldo. One half was inherited by Emilia Coronel together with her sons Benjamin, Catalino and Cerefino, all surnamed Coronel. The other half was inherited by Florentino Constantino and Aurea Buensuceso. Emilia sold her share of the lot to Jess C Santos and Priscilla Bernardo as evidenced by the “KASULATAN NG BILIHANG PATULUYAN.” Santos and Bernardo then sold it to the respondents. Petitioners built several constructions and improvements on the disputed lot. Respondents then filed a complaint for declaration of ownership, quieting of title and damages with prayer for writ of mandatory and/or prohibitory injunction with the trial court.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the sale was valid? If yes, up to what extent?
RULING:
YES, only up to ¼ share of the land inherited by Emilia and her sons. Emilia signed only in her behalf and not in representation of her three children thus the sale is only binding to her share. The subject property was co-owned, pro-indiviso by petitioner Emilia together with her petitioner sons. No proof was presented to show that the co-ownership that existed among the heirs of Ceferino and Catalino and herein petitioners as never been terminated. No evidence was presented to show that the three brothers were aware of the sale made by their mother. Since there was no partition made, Emilia is deemed to have sold only her share of the lot which is ¼ thereof. Consequently SC declared respondents as owner of ½ undivided portion of the original lot which they inherited plus ¼ share (of their ½) of petitioner Emilia Coronel.
Related Philippine Law Resources:
Newer Philippine Law Resources:
- CHUA-BURCE V. CA (possession by a bank teller is possession of the bank itself; mere custodian) -
- LASAM V. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- Possession -
- SOMODIO VS. COURT OF APPEALS- Accion interdictal -
- RAMOS VS. DIRECTOR OF LANDS- Adverse Possession -
- HEIRS OF SORIANO V. CA and SPOUSES ABALOS- Land Registration -
Additional Law Reading:
BATASnatin The Firm
Latest @ Forums
-
-
- Shema Corporation legal ba?
- In General Discussion
- 6 days, 14 hours ago
-
-
-
- foreclosed property, i need guides please help me
- In I Need A Lawyer!
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
-
-
- i cant access even the demo
- In Law MCQuizzer
- 2 weeks, 3 days ago
-
Popular
- 1
- 2
- 3
SUGGESTED ANSWERS …
ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN POLITICAL LAW ARRANGED BY TOPIC (1990 – 2006) Edited and Arranged by:Silliman University College of Law Batch 2005Updated by:DondeeD’ BAR-Retake 2007 From the ANSWERS TO BAR EXAMINATION QUESTIONS by the UP LAW COMPLEX & PHILIPPINE ASSOCIATION OF LAW SCHO...
Read moreOral Defamation l S…
Kinds and Definition of Slander or Oral Defamation Definition: Speaking of base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood Two kinds of oral or verbal defamation: (1) Grave Slander (2) Simple Slander A. Factor...
Read moreArticle I – THE NAT…
Article I – THE NATIONAL TERRITORYThe national territory of the Philippines comprises:1) the Philippine archipelago;2) all other territories over which the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdictionPHILIPPINE ARCHIPELAGO – that body of water studded with islands which is delineated in the Treaty of...
Read moreRandom
- 1
- 2
- 3
Taxation Law Review…
Taxation Law Reviewer | NIRC Attached in a reviewer in Taxation Law, the National Internal Revenue Code. NIRC Reviewer.Credits to the authors. Thanks to the person who shared :)Download the full text from the attachments area below.
Read moreCHIAO LIONG TAN V. …
CHIAO LIONG TAN V. COURT OF APPEALS 228 SCRA 75 FACTS: Chiao Long Tan claims to be the owner of a 1976 Isuzu Elf van. As owner thereof, petitioner says he has been in possession, enjoyment, and utilization of the van until his older brothe...
Read moreASSOCIATED INSURAN…
ASSOCIATED INSURANCE AND SURETY COMPANY V. IYA, ET. AL 103 SCRA 972 FACTS: Spouses Valino were the owners of a house, payable on installments from Philippine Realty Corporation. To be able to purchase on credit rice from NARIC, they filed a ...
Read moreFeatured
- 1
- 2
- 3
Right to Strike
SSSEA v. CA – right to strike – At present, in the absence of any legislation in government employees the right to strike, recognizing their right to do so, or regulating the exercise of such right, they are prohibited form striking by express prohi...
Read morePeople vs. Tolentin…
G.R. No. 176385, February 26, 2008 FACTS: On 13 February 1998, three separate informations of Murder and two counts of Frustrated Murder were filed before the RTC against appellants, together with accused Jimmy Trinidad and Arnel Trinidad. The murd...
Read morePerfection Of A Con…
In Oesmer, Jr., et al. v. Paraiso Dev. Corp., G.R. No. 157493, February 5, 2007, a contract to sell was entered into by the owners of a real property. They affixed their signatures but contested its validity later contending that their co-owner had n...
Read more

