Tabasondra vs. Spouses Constantino Case Digest

Arsenio Tabasondra, et al. vs. Sps. Conrado Constantino, et al.

G.R. No. 196403. December 7, 2016

Facts

The parties herein were the children of the late Cornelio Tabasondra from two marriages. The respondents Tarcila Tabasondra-Constantino and the late Sebastian Tabasondra were the children of Cornelio by his first wife, Severina; the petitioners, namely: Arsenio Tabasondra, Fernando Tabasondra, Cornelio Tabasondra, Jr., Mirasol Tabasondra-Mariano, Fausta Tabasondra-Tapacio, Myrasol Tabasondra-Romero, Marlene Tabasondra-Maniquil, and Guillermo Tabasondra, were children of Cornelio by his second wife, Sotera.

Valentina, and Valeriana, all surnamed Tabasondra. were siblings. They were also the registered owners of the three (3) parcels of land located at Dalayap, Tarlac City, identified as Lot No. 2536, containing an area of seventy-seven thousand one hundred and forty-seven (77,147) sq. m.; Lot No. 3155, with an area of thirteen thousand six hundred fifty-nine (13,659) sq. m.; and, Lot No. 3159, with an area of nine thousand five hundred forty-six (9,546) sq. m., covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 106012.

Cornelio died on March 15, 1991, while Valentina and Valeriana both died single on August 19, 1990 and August 4, 1998, respectively. They all died intestate and without partitioning the property covered by TCT No. 106012. Thus, the Plaintiffs-Appellees and the Defendants-Appellants, as descendants of Cornelio, possessed and occupied the property.

On August 22, 2002, the Plaintiffs-Appellees filed the complaint below against the Defendants-Appellant claiming that the parcels of land are owned in common by them and the Defendants-Appellants but the latter does not give them any share in the fruits thereof. Hence, they asked for partition but the Defendants-Appellants refused without valid reasons.

In their Answer, the Defendants-Appellants averred that they do not object to a partition provided that the same should be made only with respect to Cornelio' s share. They contended that they already own the shares of Valentina and Valeriana in the subject land by virtue of the Deed of Absolute Sale that the said sisters executed in their favor on August 18, 1982.

The RTC rendered a judgment in favor of the plaintifft, ordering [the] partition of the three (3) parcels of land covered by TCT No. 16012 among the compulsory and legal heirs of Cornelio, Valentina[,] and Valeriana, all surnamed Tabasondra.

On November 30, 2010, the CA promulgated the decision affirming the RTC with modification in that the partition and the accounting is ordered to be made only with respect to a thirty-three thousand four hundred fifty point sixty-six (33,450.66) sq.m. portion of the property.

Issue

Whether the CA correctly ordered the partition and accounting with respect to only 33,450.66 square meters of the property registered under TCT No. 10612.

Ruling

Yes. There is no question that the total area of the three lots owned in common by Cornelio, Valentina and Valeriana was 100,352 square meters; and that each of the co-owners had the right to one-third of such total area. It was established that Valentina and Valeriana executed the Deed of Absolute Sale, whereby they specifically disposed of their shares in the property registered under TCT No. 10612 in favor of Sebastian Tabasondra and Tarcila Tabasondra.

The Court upheld the right of Valentina and Valeriana to thereby alienate .. their pro indiviso shares to Sebastian and Tarcila even without the knowledge or consent of their co-owner Cornelio because the alienation covered the disposition of only their respective interests in the common property. According to Article 493 of the Civil Code, each co-owner "shall have the full ownership of his part and of the fruits and benefits pertaining thereto, and he may therefore alienate, assign or mortgage it, and even substitute another person in its enjoyment, except when personal rights are involved," but "the effect of the alienation or the mortgage, with respect to the co-owners, shall be limited to the portion which may be allotted to him in the division upon the termination of the co-ownership." Hence, the petitioners as the successors-in-interest of Cornelio could not validly assail the alienation by Valentina and Valeriana of their shares in favor of the respondents.

The SC affirmed the CA's ruling that there is no denying that the RTC erred in granting the complaint and ordering a partition without qualifying that such should not include the shares previously pertaining to Valeria and Valentina. Simply put, since the aggregate area of the subject property is one hundred thousand three hundred fifty-two (100,352) sq.m., it follows that Cornelio, Valentina, and Valeriana each has a share equivalent to thirty-three thousand four hundred fifty point sixty-six (33,450.66) sq. m. portion thereof. Accordingly, when Valentina and Valeriana sold their shares, the Defendants-Appellants became co-owners with Cornelio. Perforce, upon Cornelia's death, the only area that his heirs, that is, the Plaintiffs-Appellees and the Defendants-Appellants, are entitled to and which may be made subject of partition is only a thirty three thousand four hundred fifty point sixty-six (33,450.66) sq.m. portion of the property.

As a result of Valentina and Valeriana's alienation in favor of Sebastian and Tarcila of their pro indiviso shares in the three lots, Sebastian and Tarcila became co-owners of the 100,352-square meter property with Cornelio (later on, with the petitioners who were the successors-in-interest of Cornelio). In effect, Sebastian and Tarcila were co-owners of two-thirds of the property, with each of them having one-third pro indiviso share in the three lots, while the remaining one-third was co-owned by the heirs of Cornelio, namely, Sebastian, Tarcila and the petitioners.

Although the CA correctly identified the co-owners of the three lots, it did not segregate the 100,352-square meter property into determinate portions among the several co-owners.

Accordingly, there is a need to remand the case to the court of origin for the purpose of identifying and segregating, by metes and bounds, the specific portions of the three lots assigned to the co-owners, and to effect the physical partition of the property in the following proportions: Tarcila, one-,, third; the heirs of Sebastian, one-third; and the petitioners (individually), along with Tarcila and the heirs of Sebastian (collectively), one-third. That physical partition was required, but the RTC and the CA uncharacteristically did not require it. Upon remand, therefore, the R TC should comply with the express terms of Section 2, Rule 69 of the Rules of Court.

Should the parties be unable to agree on the partition, the next step for the R TC will be to appoint not more than three competent and disinterested persons as commissioners to make the partition, and to command such commissioners to set off to each party in interest the part and proportion of the property as directed in this decision.

WHEREFORE, the Court AFFIRMS WITH MODIFICATION the decision of the Court of Appeals promulgated on November 30, 2010 in CA-G.R. CV No. 92920 in that the accounting is to be made only with respect to the fruits of the one-third portion of the property still under the co-ownership of all the parties; REMANDS the case to the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, in Tarlac City for further proceedings in accordance with •this decision, and to determine the technical metes and bounds and description of the proper share of each co-owner of the property covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. 10612, including the improvements thereon, in accordance with the Civil Code and Rule 69 of the Rules of Court; and ORDERS the petitioners to pay the costs of suit.