sale of whole property made by a co-owner

Petitioners herein filed a case for recovery of property and damages against the defendant and herein private respondent, Celestino Afable.

Rosalia Bailon and Gaudencio Bailon sold a portion of the said land consisting of 16,283 square meters to Donato Delgado. On May 13, 1949, Rosalia Bailon alone sold the remainder of the land consisting of 32,566 square meters to Ponciana V. Aresgado de Lanuza. On the same date, Lanuza acquired from Delgado the 16,283 square meters of land which the latter had earlier acquired from Rosalia and gaudencio. On December 3, 1975, John Lanuza, acting under a special power of attorney given by his wife, Ponciana V. Aresgado de Lanuza, sold the two parcels of land to Celestino Afable, Sr. In all these transfers, it was stated in the deeds of sale that the land was not registered.

Afable claimed that he had acquired the land in question through prescription and contended that the petitioners were guilty of laches.

Issue:

What is the effect of a sale by one or more co-owners of the entire property held in common without the consent of all the co-owners and of the appropriate remedy of the aggrieved co-owners?

Held:

The Court has ruled that even if a co-owner sells the whole property as his, the sale will affect only his own share but not those of the other co-owners who did not consent to the sale. The sale or other disposition affects only what would correspond to his grantor in the partition of the thing owned in common. Consequently, by virtue of the sales made by Rosalia and Gaudencio Bailon which are valid with respect to their proportionate shares, and the subsequent transfers which culminated in the sale to private respondent Celestino Afable thereby became a co-owner of the disputed parcel of land as correctly held by the lower court since the sales produced the effect of substituting the buyers in the enjoyment thereof.

It may be deduced that since a co-owner is entitled to sell his undivided share, a sale of the entire property by one co-owner without the consent of the other co-owner is not null and void. However, only the rights of the co-owner-seller are transferred, thereby making the buyer a co-owner of the property.

The proper action in cases like this is not for the nullification of the sale or for the recovery of possession of the thing owned in common from the third person who substituted the co-owner or co-owners who alienated their shares, but the DIVISION of the common property as if it continued to remain in the possession of the co-owners who possessed and administered it.

The action to demand partition is imprescriptible or cannot be barred by laches, absent a clear repudiation of the co-ownership by a co-owner clearly communicated to the other co-owners.